From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: do_gettimeofday Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 09:42:19 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3F7DA6EB.4040200@candelatech.com> References: <3F7C6F3B.6070502@sgi.com> <20031002125625.72b8c0a7.shemminger@osdl.org> <20031003004133.3148c39a.davem@redhat.com> <20031003082642.GF42593@gaz.sfgoth.com> <20031003012754.23de3f66.davem@redhat.com> <20031003084847.GH42593@gaz.sfgoth.com> <20031003015220.7ee6e451.davem@redhat.com> <20031003092617.GI42593@gaz.sfgoth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Mitchell Blank Jr In-Reply-To: <20031003092617.GI42593@gaz.sfgoth.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Mitchell Blank Jr wrote: > David S. Miller wrote: > >>There is the weird issue (with both the sparc64 example and your's >>here) of whether we should care about what happens when settimeofday() >>occurs. We probably shouldn't worry about it... as it gives weird >>results even currently. > > > Nah. If anything you'll get better results since you're computing > the timeval later. > > This is another argument for caching the computation though - otherwise > a settimeofday() could cause the packet timestamp to change drasically > from one observation to the next :-) It would also be nice to be able to set a flag on raw sockets to just have the 'raw' timestamp passed up to user-space. In many cases, the relative timestamp may be all that is needed, and user-space could optimize the conversion to gettimeofday as needed. Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com