Subject: Re: do_gettimeofday

From: Ben Greear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 09:42:19 -0700

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 needed,
and user-space could optimize the conversion to gettimeofday as needed.

Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <[email-masked]>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com