Re: [RFC PATCH 02/13] extended semantic of sk_buff::tstamp: lowest bit marks hardware time stamps

[Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>]

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 07:41 +0000, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Please use ktime_t instead of "union ktime"

Are you sure? 

include/linux/ktime.h says
        typedef union ktime ktime_t;            /* Kill this */
and the CodingStyle also seems to be against it.

I thought it would be good to avoid using the typedef in new code, but
if consistency with the existing code is preferred, then I'll change it.

> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * make sure that lowest bit is never set: it marks hardware
> > +	 * time stamps
> > +	 */
> > +#if BITS_PER_LONG != 64 && !defined(CONFIG_KTIME_SCALAR)
> > +	skb->tstamp.tv.sec = skb->tstamp.tv.sec / 2 * 2;
> 
> .tv.sec ? are you sure you dont want .tv.nsec ?

Eek! Right. I'm pretty sure I compiled this in 32 bit mode, but I
haven't actually tried the result.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.