Hi, Miroslav Lichvar <mlich...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 01:37:38AM +0000, Eric Decker wrote: >> If the timestamp is available in less than the timeout (5ms) will it still >> wait for the timeout, or continue processing after the timestamp is received? > > The poll() call is waiting for the descriptor, so it should return as > soon as the timestamp is ready. The option sets the maximum time it > waits. > > I'm ok with increasing the default timeout. > > As a future improvement, maybe it could be adaptive, e.g. once in a > while try waiting much longer and if that doesn't give a timestamp > stick to a shorter interval. That is, try to detect when the hardware > is not able to timestamp all packets. Speaking of future improvements, wouldn't it be easier if the kernel/driver was able to notify userspace that a timestamping request wasn't able to be serviced? I am thinking of sending an error via the socket error queue. I know this won't improve the situation for current kernels, but something like this might be worth thinking about for the future. > > -- > Miroslav Lichvar > > > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxptp-devel mailing list > Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel Cheers, -- Vinicius _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
