On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Willem de Bruijn >> <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Thanks for the review! Any suggestions for how to do the testing? If you >>>> have >>>> existing test cases, could you give my next version a test run to see if >>>> there >>>> are any regressions and if the timestamps work as expected? >>>> >>>> I see that there are test cases in tools/testing/selftests/net/, but none >>>> of them seem to use the time stamps so far, and I'm not overly familiar >>>> with how it works in the details to extend it in a meaningful way. >>> >>> I could not find any good tests for this interface, either. The only >>> user of the interface I found was a little tool I wrote a few years >>> ago that compares timestamps at multiple points in the transmit >>> path for latency measurement [1]. But it may be easier to just write >>> a new test under tools/testing/selftests/net for this purpose. I can >>> help with that, too, if you want. >> >> Thanks, that would be great! > > I'll reply to this thread with git send-email with an extension to > tools/testing/selftests/net/psock_tpacket.c.
It appears that it did not end up in this thread. At least not when using gmail threading. Patch at http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/842854/
