From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:23:32 +0200
> [NET]: Store skb->timestamp as offset to a base timestamp
>
> Reduces skb size by 8 bytes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Updated patch applied, thanks Patrick.
-
To unsubscribe from this l
Ben Greear wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>> +static inline void skb_get_timestamp(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
>> timeval *stamp)
>> +{
>> +stamp->tv_sec = skb->tstamp.off_sec;
>> +stamp->tv_usec = skb->tstamp.off_usec;
>> +if (skb->tstamp.off_sec) {
>> +stamp->tv_sec +=
Patrick McHardy wrote:
David S. Miller wrote:
I just double-checked, and I didn't lose it during the
recent rebasing, as the tree I started with didn't have
the skb->stamp patch either.
Are you sure I did apply it at some point?
Yes, I know it was in your tree before the first rebasing.
E
David S. Miller wrote:
I just double-checked, and I didn't lose it during the
recent rebasing, as the tree I started with didn't have
the skb->stamp patch either.
Are you sure I did apply it at some point?
Yes, I know it was in your tree before the first rebasing.
Either way, please resend i
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:25:08 +0200
> I just wanted to make the patch to break compilation for
> unconverted code for the skb->stamp change and noticed that
> the patch is missing from your latest net-2.6.14 tree. Is
> this deliberate or did it get lost?
Hi Dave,
I just wanted to make the patch to break compilation for
unconverted code for the skb->stamp change and noticed that
the patch is missing from your latest net-2.6.14 tree. Is
this deliberate or did it get lost?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the bo
