From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Johannes Berg <johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA] timestamp field
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:42:43 +0100
Message-ID: <1453293763.13263.8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <1449236499.2574.4.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bounces-radiotap-owner-gnwr-radiotap=gmane.org-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <1449236499.2574.4.camel-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>
Sender: radiotap-owner-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org
To: radiotap-S783fYmB3Ccdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
Cc: aviya.erenfeld-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Simon Barber <simon-vp0mx6+5gkqFX2APIN6yfw@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: radiotap@radiotap.org

Repost, since a few weeks have passed.

Any comments?

Simon, would this help you at all?

johannes

On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 14:41 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi all,
>=20
> This is a request for adoption of the timestamp field as documented on=C2=
=A0
> http://www.radiotap.org/suggested-fields/timestamp
>=20
> I've attached the necessary wireshark patch, as well as a patch to the
> Linux hardware simulator (mac80211_hwsim) to generate a dummy field for
> experimentation.
>=20
> I'd previously sent an RFC, but I didn't receive that much feedback so
> I've just tried to be fairly generic here.
>=20
> johannes