Re: [tcpdump-workers] [PATCH] Add ioctl to disable bpf timestamping

Matthew Luckie wrote: The motivation for this patch was to obtain something resembling the timestamp closest to when a packet I generated and transmitted hit the wire, to infer a more accurate RTT with an associated response packet. That's certainly a worthy goal, but the patch might not help muc

Re: [tcpdump-workers] [PATCH] Add ioctl to disable bpf timestamping

This is probably a pointless optimization, as you probably relatively rarely have multiple BPF devices bound to the same interface receiving the bulk of the packets (as opposed to some daemon with a filter that passes only the packets it's interested in), but would there be any advantage to hav

Re: [tcpdump-workers] [PATCH] Add ioctl to disable bpf timestamping

In some email I received from Guy Harris, sie wrote: > On Sep 8, 2004, at 2:26 AM, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > > Here's a patch against 5.3 to add a per-instance switch which allows > > the user to specify if captured packets should be timestamped (and, > > if so, whether microtime() or the faster

Re: [tcpdump-workers] [PATCH] Add ioctl to disable bpf timestamping

(Noise to defeat the duplicate-message detector for [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Guy Harris wrote: This is probably a pointless optimization, "This" referring not to Bruce's proposed change, but to my proposed change to have one time stamp call per packet. ___ [

Re: [tcpdump-workers] [PATCH] Add ioctl to disable bpf timestamping

Guy Harris wrote: This is probably a pointless optimization, "This" referring not to your change, but to having one time stamp call per packet. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send

RE: [PATCH] Add ioctl to disable bpf timestamping

>From Bruce's patch: + if (d->bd_tstamp == BPF_TSTAMP_MICROTIME) + microtime(&hp->bh_tstamp); + else if (d->bd_tstamp == BPF_TSTAMP_GETMICROTIME) + getmicrotime(&hp->bh_tstamp); Perhaps set the timestamp to zero in the else case? Ed Maste Sandvine Inc. ___

RE: [PATCH] Add ioctl to disable bpf timestamping

BMS wrote: > Here's a patch against 5.3 to add a per-instance switch which allows > the user to specify if captured packets should be timestamped (and, > if so, whether microtime() or the faster but less accurate > getmicrotime() call should be used). We've implemented this internally on 4.7, and

Re: [tcpdump-workers] [PATCH] Add ioctl to disable bpf timestamping

On Sep 8, 2004, at 2:26 AM, Bruce M Simpson wrote: Here's a patch against 5.3 to add a per-instance switch which allows the user to specify if captured packets should be timestamped (and, if so, whether microtime() or the faster but less accurate getmicrotime() call should be used). This is probabl

Re: [PATCH] Add ioctl to disable bpf timestamping

how much bandwidth change does this give? is teh timestamp really a big load? fo a 4% increase I wouldn't bother. for a 50% increase I would.. Bruce M Simpson wrote: Here's a patch against 5.3 to add a per-instance switch which allows the user to specify if captured packets should be timestamped

Re: [PATCH] Add ioctl to disable bpf timestamping

Bruce M Simpson wrote: Here's a patch against 5.3 to add a per-instance switch which allows the user to specify if captured packets should be timestamped (and, if so, whether microtime() or the faster but less accurate getmicrotime() call should be used). I like the idea (I've been using a hack

[PATCH] Add ioctl to disable bpf timestamping

Here's a patch against 5.3 to add a per-instance switch which allows the user to specify if captured packets should be timestamped (and, if so, whether microtime() or the faster but less accurate getmicrotime() call should be used). Comments/flames/etc to the usual... BMS Index: bpf.c ===