26/10/2020 15:53, Stephen Hemminger: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:33:14 +0100 > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > 26/10/2020 11:43, David Marchand: > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:21 AM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The example used the deprecated mbuf field udata64. > > > > It is moved to a dynamic field in order to allow removal of udata64. > > > > > > > > Note: RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD_TIMESTAMP_NAME is an existing mbuf field name. > > > > > > I am a bit lost. > > > How is this going to work as the mbuf timestamp field is used in this > > > example too? > > > > Oh, you're right! > > I will change the naming scheme to a custom "TSC" field. > > Since timestamp is still there why doesn't the example just use that?
This is what I did, but it's wrong because it is a different timestamp. The example is doing a comparison of timestamps (AFAIU).
