From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Cochran Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 5/5] net-timestamp: tx timestamping default mode flag Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:32:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20150111203256.GC4214@localhost.localdomain> References: <1420824719-28848-1-git-send-email-willemb@google.com> <1420824719-28848-6-git-send-email-willemb@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, luto@amacapital.net To: Willem de Bruijn Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]:36846 "EHLO mail-wi0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751159AbbAKUdB (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:33:01 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id l15so10981175wiw.2 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:33:00 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1420824719-28848-6-git-send-email-willemb@google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:31:59PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > From: Willem de Bruijn > > The number of timestamping points along the transmit path has grown, > as have the options. Preferred behavior is to request timestamps with > ID, without data (which enables batching) and for all supported > timestamp points. Define a short option that enables all these > defaults. This "preferred behavior" is subjective, and it depends on the application. I am sure it reflects your own interest, but for people doing PTP over UDP or raw, it is a bit misleading. I would drop this default and just let applications define their own. Thanks, Richard