From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.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 08:52:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180125165221.yl26fa2yieqgkeh4@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180125091225.GG1169@localhost>
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:12:25AM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> 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?
I prefer a single 64 bit nanoseconds field:
- Applications won't have to convert to timespec.
- Avoids the time_t issue.
Thanks,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-25 16:52 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 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Miroslav Lichvar
2018-01-25 16:52 ` Richard Cochran [this message]
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=20180125165221.yl26fa2yieqgkeh4@localhost \
--to=richardcochran@gmail.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=mlichvar@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rcochran@linutronix.de \
--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).