> Now, as a general rule, I would call timestamps general. They should be
> added in a fashion that anyone can implement. They should also be well
> defined. Sean's questions raise a very valid point. Exactly what is
> being timestamped, and do we care about different timestamp options? Is
> it completion of message, start of message, transfer from HCA to main
> system memory completion, etc. The 00/10 header to this patch series
> was probably answering Sean's question, but just based on the name of
> the TIMESTAMP flag to the CQ creation attr struct it isn't clear that
> this is the case.
I didn't see the information that I was looking for in the patch header to this
series. As Jason pointed out, the use case is lacking.
IMO, it could make just as much sense to associate/enable time stamping with
the QP as with the CQ, or even make it configurable per operation or operation
type.
If Christoph has a clear use case and wants to go to the 'bare metal', then a
vendor specific option seems ideal. At least until there are other
implementations or the driving use case is clearer.
- Sean
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{��ٚ�{ay� ʇڙ�,j��f���h���z� �w���
���j:+v���w�j�m��������zZ+�����ݢj"��!�i
