Hello!
> But that never happens right?
Right.
Well, not right. It happens. Simply because you get packet
with newer timestamp after previous handler saw this packet
and did some actions. I just do not see any bad consequences.
> And do you have some other prefered way to solve this? Even if the timer
> was fast it would be still good to avoid it in the fast path when DHCPD
> is running.
No. The way, which you suggested, seems to be the best.
1. It even does not disable possibility to record timestamp inside
driver, which Alan was afraid of. The sequence is:
if (!skb->tstamp.off_sec)
net_timestamp(skb);
2. Maybe, netif_rx() should continue to get timestamp in netif_rx().
3. NAPI already introduced almost the same inaccuracy. And it is really
silly to waste time getting timestamp in netif_receive_skb() a few
moments before the packet is delivered to a socket.
4. ...but clock source, which takes one of top lines in profiles
must be repaired yet. :-)
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
