Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
David S. Miller wrote:
There is the weird issue (with both the sparc64 example and your's
here) of whether we should care about what happens when settimeofday()
occurs. We probably shouldn't worry about it... as it gives weird
results even currently.
Nah. If anything you'll get better results since you're computing
the timeval later.
This is another argument for caching the computation though - otherwise
a settimeofday() could cause the packet timestamp to change drasically
from one observation to the next :-)
It would also be nice to be able to set a flag on raw sockets to just have
the 'raw' timestamp passed
up to user-space. In many cases, the relative timestamp may be all that is
and user-space could optimize the conversion to gettimeofday as needed.
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com