On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:32:08AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:02 AM Richard Cochran > <richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:57:57PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > It is debatable whether this is a fix or a new feature. It extends > > > SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID to hardware timestamps. I don't think this > > > would be a stable candidate. > > > > Was the original series advertised as SW timestamping only? > > I did not intend to cover hardware timestamps at the time. > > > If so, I missed that at the time. After seeing it not work, I meant > > to fix it, but never got around to it. So to me this is a known > > issue. > > Understood. I certainly understand that view. I never use hw > timestamps, so it is a bit of a blind spot for me. If this is a safe > and predictable change, I don't care strongly about net vs net-next. I > don't think it meets the bar for stable, but that is not my call.
I've found that SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID already works with hardware timestamps for TCP just not datagram sockets and so I though this was a fix. > > > More importantly, note that __ip6_append_data has similar logic. For > > > consistency the two should be updated at the same time. > > > > +1 > > > > Thanks, > > Richard Thanks for the feedback, I'll update with __ip6_append_data.
