From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] packet: experimental support for 64-bit
 timestamps
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:08:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <20171128.150815.1752676303491956378.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20171128131514.2675733-1-arnd@arndb.de>
        <20171128.100543.834604452984869251.davem@davemloft.net>
        <CAK8P3a0D++fwPCKOai-xFke6o6kBjS6XxdwB=+y5bVjr7rC6Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mlichvar@redhat.com, willemb@google.com, bjorn.topel@gmail.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, francisyyan@gmail.com,
        edumazet@google.com, keescook@chromium.org, rami.rosen@intel.com,
        andreyknvl@google.com, maloney@google.com,
        sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: arnd@arndb.de
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0D++fwPCKOai-xFke6o6kBjS6XxdwB=+y5bVjr7rC6Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:02:05 +0100

> Does this mean you think the general idea of an extended interface
> for 64-bit timestamps is useful for traditional packet sockets? I
> think that was still an open question, though we seem to be getting
> closer to consensus on the implementation and the interface that it
> should use if we want it.

If it can be done reasonably easy, which you patches seem to indicate
is the case, I have no objections to extending packet socket for
64-bit timestamps.

I hope that AF_CAPTURE will be designed in such a way that all apps
can migrate to it, and I will be making sure it is implemented
appropriately with that in mind.

But I don't think AF_CAPTURE should block your work here.