On 13/06/2013 05:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT) > David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > >> From: Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.ta...@linux.intel.com> >> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:28 +0300 >> >>> depends on X86_TSC >> >> Wait a second, I didn't notice this before. There needs to be a better >> way to test for the accuracy you need, or if the issue is lack of a proper >> API for cycle counter reading, fix that rather than add ugly arch >> specific dependencies to generic networking code. > > This should be sched_clock(), rather than direct TSC access. > Also any code using TSC or sched_clock has to be carefully audited to deal > with > clocks running at different rates on different CPU's. Basically value is only > meaning full on same CPU.
OK, If we covert to sched_clock(), would adding a define such as HAVE_HIGH_PRECISION_CLOCK to architectures that have both a high precision clock and a 64 bit cycles_t be a good solution? (if not any other suggestion?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
