On Jun 9, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > bpf(4) can only timestamp packets with microtime(9). I want to expand > it to be able to use different format and resolution. The patch is > here: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/bpf_tstamp.diff > > With this patch, we can select different format and resolution of the > timestamps. It is done via ioctl(2) with BIOCSTSTAMP command. > Similarly, you can get the current format and resolution with > BIOCGTSTAMP command. Currently, the following functions are > available: > > BPF_T_MICROTIME microtime(9) > BPF_T_NANOTIME nanotime(9) > BPF_T_BINTIME bintime(9) > BPF_T_MICROTIME_FAST getmicrotime(9) > BPF_T_NANOTIME_FAST getnanotime(9) > BPF_T_BINTIME_FAST getbintime(9) > BPF_T_NONE ignore time stamps >
I like this idea. I've been using getmicrotime(9) myself. > (Note: Additionally, there is an experimental machanism to tag packets > with timestamps in struct bintime format via mbuf_tags(9) from lower > layer, e.g., device driver. However, I didn't test it because I > wasn't sure whether this is the right thing to do.) Not sure about this. > While I was here, I moved the bogus SIZEOF_BPF_HDR macro into bpf.c > and tried to make it little bit more correct. For example, the > 32-bit shim should be able to handle alignment more properly for > non-Ethernet DLTs. I tried my best not to break ABI/API (especially > for 32-bit platforms) and relevant places are all marked with > BURN_BRIDGES. Not sure about this either. Guy _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
