From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.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
Message-ID: <20180125165221.yl26fa2yieqgkeh4@localhost>
References: <20180117230621.26074-1-jesus.sanchez-palencia@intel.com>
 <20180117230621.26074-2-jesus.sanchez-palencia@intel.com>
 <CAF=yD-JCN483_e9U7tb_4+2jGyWKfhS0TzooOui+kS4Gh7RSqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180120020915.erlylrbsaejf7ufo@localhost>
 <20180125091225.GG1169@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Richard Cochran <rcochran@linutronix.de>,
        =?utf-8?B?SmnFmcOtIFDDrXJrbw==?= <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>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:38779 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751065AbeAYQwZ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:52:25 -0500
Received: by mail-pf0-f193.google.com with SMTP id k19so6174695pfj.5
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:52:25 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180125091225.GG1169@localhost>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

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