From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Cochran Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] qed: Add infrastructure for PTP support. Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:26:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20170130132619.GA4854@localhost.localdomain> References: <1485674903-27689-1-git-send-email-Sudarsana.Kalluru@cavium.com> <1485674903-27689-2-git-send-email-Sudarsana.Kalluru@cavium.com> <20170129153134.GC2223@localhost.localdomain> <20170129205156.GA30336@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "davem@davemloft.net" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "Kalluru, Sudarsana" To: "Mintz, Yuval" Return-path: Received: from mail-wj0-f193.google.com ([209.85.210.193]:35741 "EHLO mail-wj0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750801AbdA3NyK (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:54:10 -0500 Received: by mail-wj0-f193.google.com with SMTP id i7so7865550wjf.2 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 05:54:09 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 09:36:11PM +0000, Mintz, Yuval wrote: > I might have gotten it all wrong, but I was under the assumption that time- > stamped packets are periodic, and that the interval between two isn't > going to be so small. That is an incorrect assumption. Consider the Delay_Req packets arriving on a port in the MASTER state. > Is so, how does having a couple of additional instructions in between > jeopardizes the next time stamp? It is not just about the few instructions, but there is also preemption possible. Thanks, Richard