Re: hardware time stamping with optional structs in data area

From: Patrick Ohly
Date: Wed Jan 28 2009 - 04:52:32 EST

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 11:08 +0200, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > True - at this time. But what if this extension mechanism turns out to
> > be useful and we end up with more optional structures? I was hoping that
> > this might be the case and thus tried to make it easy to add more
> > structures.
> You're putting the extension in the skb->end area, right?


> How big are the time stamps? If they're not that big, why don't
> we put it into the shinfo structure itself? For the common case,
> we have plenty of space due to kmalloc padding anyway.

Two 64 bit fields have to be added for time stamps plus 3 bits for flags
(for time stamping instructions, currently in skb_shared_tx).

Putting that into shinfo should work fine. I thought extending that
structure with information that isn't needed for all packets was as bad
as extending sk_buff itself. If that isn't the case, then extending
shinfo definitely is the simplest solution.

Bye, Patrick

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at