On 7/12/2021 6:36 PM, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 05:02:58PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote: >> 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? > > It would fall to the drivers to implement that correctly. I doubt the > situation would improve. We'd only end up chasing another class of > bugs. > > Thanks, > Richard >
What about at least checking for the case where a timestamp was never started? Drivers are supposed to set a flag in the SKB when they start a timestamp (and not set it if they can't start it). This could be done primarily in the core stack to send back an error of a packet had a timestamp request but the request didn't get started? This isn't going to solve the case where a timestamp went missing, of course, but it would solve the case of "I can't start a timestamp while one is already in progress" _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
