On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 5:43 PM Willem de Bruijn <will...@google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 8:30 PM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:32 AM Christian Eggers <cegg...@arri.de> wrote: > > > > > > The comparison of optname with SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW is wrong way around, > > > so SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW will first be set and than reset again. Additionally > > > move it out of the test for SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE as this seems > > > unrelated. > > > > The SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW is reset only in the case when > > SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE is not set. > > Note that we only call sock_enable_timestamp() at that time. > > > > Why would SOCK_TSTAMP_NEW be relevant otherwise? > > Other timestamps can be configured, such as hardware timestamps. > > As the follow-on patch shows, there is also the issue of overlap > between SO_TIMESTAMP(NS) and SO_TIMESTAMPING.
I see. Thanks for clarification. I think I had missed that you could have both software and hardware timestamps enabled at the same time. > Don't select OLD on timestamp disable, which may only disable > some of the ongoing timestamping. > > Setting based on the syscall is simpler, too. __sock_set_timestamps > already uses for SO_TIMESTAMP(NS) the valbool approach I > suggest for SO_TIMESTAMPING. > > The fallthrough can also be removed. My rough patch missed that. Sounds good. -Deepa
