lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Fire Engine??
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:36:20 -0800
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:29:09 +0100
> Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > The first SIOCGTSTAMP would be inaccurate, but the following (after
> > all untimestamped packets have been flushed) would be ok.
>
> I don't think this is acceptable. It's important that all
> of the timestamps are as accurate as they were before.

I disagree on that. The window is small and slowing down 99.99999% of all
users who never care about this for this extremely obscure misdesigned API does
not make much sense to me.

Also if you worry about these you could add an optional sysctl
to always take it, so if anybody really has an application that relies
on the first time stamp being accurate and they cannot use SO_TIMESTAMP
they could set the sysctl.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.041 / U:1.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site