Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:56:41 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fire Engine??
Message-Id: <20031126235641.36fd71c1.ak@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20031126143620.5229fb1f.davem@redhat.com>
References: <BAY1-DAV15JU71pROHD000040e2@hotmail.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
	<20031125183035.1c17185a.davem@redhat.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
	<p73fzgbzca6.fsf@verdi.suse.de>
	<20031126113040.3b774360.davem@redhat.com>
	<3FC505F4.2010006@google.com>
	<20031126120316.3ee1d251.davem@redhat.com>
	<20031126232909.7e8a028f.ak@suse.de>
	<20031126143620.5229fb1f.davem@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1079
Lines: 27

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/