From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: "Willem de Bruijn" <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
"John Stultz" <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
"Richard Cochran" <rcochran@linutronix.de>,
"Jiří Pírko" <jiri@resnulli.us>,
ivan.briano@intel.com,
"Network Development" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
henrik@austad.us, "Jamal Hadi Salim" <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
levi.pearson@harman.com, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
"Cong Wang" <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
anna-maria@linutronix.de,
"Jesus Sanchez-Palencia" <jesus.sanchez-palencia@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC v2 net-next 01/10] net: Add a new socket option for a future transmit time.
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:12:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180125091225.GG1169@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180120020915.erlylrbsaejf7ufo@localhost>
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:09:15PM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 04:15:46PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > + if (cmsg->cmsg_len != CMSG_LEN(sizeof(ktime_t)))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > I don't see any existing reference to ktime_t in include/uapi. Just use a s64?
>
> Agreed. I didn't see the point of switching to ktime, either.
Do I understand it correctly that no other interface is using
nanoseconds since 1970? We probably don't have to worry about year
2262 yet, but wouldn't it be better to make it consistent with the
timestamping API using timespec? Or is it just better to avoid the
64/32-bit mess of time_t?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-25 9:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-17 23:06 [RFC v2 net-next 00/10] Time based packet transmission Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-17 23:06 ` [RFC v2 net-next 01/10] net: Add a new socket option for a future transmit time Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-18 8:42 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Miroslav Lichvar
2018-01-18 17:13 ` Richard Cochran
2018-02-01 0:49 ` Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-02-01 4:16 ` Richard Cochran
2018-02-01 9:27 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-02-01 20:55 ` Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-23 21:22 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2018-01-24 3:04 ` Richard Cochran
2018-01-24 22:46 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2018-01-26 2:12 ` Richard Cochran
2018-02-12 22:39 ` Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-02-13 9:56 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-01-18 17:11 ` Richard Cochran
2018-01-23 18:12 ` Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-19 21:15 ` Willem de Bruijn
2018-01-20 2:09 ` Richard Cochran
2018-01-25 9:12 ` Miroslav Lichvar [this message]
2018-01-25 16:52 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Richard Cochran
2018-01-23 18:24 ` Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-23 20:02 ` Willem de Bruijn
2018-01-17 23:06 ` [RFC v2 net-next 02/10] net: ipv4: raw: Hook into time based transmission Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-18 0:28 ` Eric Dumazet
2018-01-17 23:06 ` [RFC v2 net-next 03/10] net: ipv4: udp: " Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-17 23:06 ` [RFC v2 net-next 04/10] net: packet: " Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-17 23:06 ` [RFC v2 net-next 05/10] net/sched: Allow creating a Qdisc watchdog with other clocks Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-17 23:06 ` [RFC v2 net-next 06/10] net/sched: Introduce the TBS Qdisc Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-18 13:35 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2018-01-18 13:44 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2018-01-23 21:45 ` Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-18 17:18 ` Richard Cochran
2018-01-23 22:01 ` Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-19 21:18 ` Willem de Bruijn
2018-01-17 23:06 ` [RFC v2 net-next 07/10] igb: Refactor igb_configure_cbs() Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-17 23:06 ` [RFC v2 net-next 08/10] igb: Only change Tx arbitration when CBS is on Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-17 23:06 ` [RFC v2 net-next 09/10] igb: Refactor igb_offload_cbs() Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-17 23:06 ` [RFC v2 net-next 10/10] igb: Add support for TBS offload Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-23 5:23 ` [RFC v2 net-next 00/10] Time based packet transmission Richard Cochran
2018-01-23 5:26 ` Richard Cochran
2018-01-23 18:07 ` Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
2018-01-24 1:43 ` Levi Pearson
2018-01-27 0:04 ` Jesus Sanchez-Palencia
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180125091225.GG1169@localhost \
--to=mlichvar@redhat.com \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=henrik@austad.us \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=ivan.briano@intel.com \
--cc=jesus.sanchez-palencia@intel.com \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=levi.pearson@harman.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rcochran@linutronix.de \
--cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).