On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 14:44 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 14:19, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 12:15 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > > > > Also counter question: why is the netstamp code protected by a > > > static_key otherwise if not for trying to suppress the code path as > > > often as possible if not used? ;) > > > > Any idea of why timestamping is asked on AF_UNIX in the first place ? > > I guess syslog code want's to have more accurate timetstamps on when the > packet is send. > > > For messages sent/received on af_unix sockets, in which place timestamp > > is taken ? > > in unix_sendmsg on the sending unix socket (we check peer unix socket > for timestamp flag). > > > Is it at the time skb is cooked and stored in receive queue, or the time > > it was dequeued ? > > No, at time it is send by sendmsg on the sending socket. > > > In any case, is your patch changing af_unix behavior ? It is not clear > > from your changelog... > > No, af_unix logic does not pass this logic at all, so we don't need to > care about netstamp code. netstamp_needed is private to dev.c.
Thanks for clarifying Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
