[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support
From: |
David Woodhouse |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Jul 2024 09:14:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.44.4-0ubuntu2 |
On Tue, 2024-07-16 at 13:54 +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
> On 08.07.24 11:27, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Time according to time_type field above.
> > + */
> > + uint64_t time_sec; /* Seconds since time_type epoch */
> > + uint64_t time_frac_sec; /* (seconds >> 64) */
> > + uint64_t time_esterror_picosec; /* (± picoseconds) */
> > + uint64_t time_maxerror_picosec; /* (± picoseconds) */
>
> Is this unsigned or signed?
The field itself is unsigned, as it provides the absolute value of the
error (which can be in either direction). Probably better just to drop
the ± from the comment.
Julien is now back from vacation and I'm expecting to see his opinion
on whether we can change that to nanoseconds for consistency.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
- [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support, David Woodhouse, 2024/07/08
- Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support, Peter Hilber, 2024/07/10
- Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support, David Woodhouse, 2024/07/10
- Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support, Peter Hilber, 2024/07/11
- Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support, David Woodhouse, 2024/07/11
- Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support, Peter Hilber, 2024/07/16
- Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support, David Woodhouse, 2024/07/16
- Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support, Peter Hilber, 2024/07/16
- Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support, David Woodhouse, 2024/07/17
Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support, Peter Hilber, 2024/07/16
- Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support,
David Woodhouse <=