On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:59 PM Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 3:59 AM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > SOCK_RCVTSTAMPNS is never set alone. SOCK_RCVTSTAMP > > is always set along with SOCK_RCVTSTAMPNS. This leads to > > checking for two flag states whenever we need to check for > > SOCK_RCVTSTAMPS. > > > > Also SOCK_RCVTSTAMPS was the only flag that needed to be > > checked in order to verify if either of the two flags are > > set. But, the two features are not actually dependent on > > each other. This artificial dependency creates more > > confusion. > > This is done so that the hot path only has to check one flag > in the common case where no timestamp is requested.
In that case we could just check it this way: if (newsk->sk_flags & SK_FLAGS_TIMESTAMP) We are already doing this in many places. I do not see any other reason for the two timestamps to be intertwined. Do you have any objections to using this patch and replacing the checks as above? -Deepa
