From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753320AbdK1UIY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:08:24 -0500
Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:47478 "EHLO
        shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752479AbdK1UIW (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:08:22 -0500
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:08:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20171128.150815.1752676303491956378.davem@davemloft.net>
To: arnd@arndb.de
Cc: mlichvar@redhat.com, willemb@google.com, bjorn.topel@gmail.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, francisyyan@gmail.com, edumazet@google.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, rami.rosen@intel.com, andreyknvl@google.com,
        maloney@google.com, sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] packet: experimental support for 64-bit
 timestamps
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0D++fwPCKOai-xFke6o6kBjS6XxdwB=+y5bVjr7rC6Ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20171128131514.2675733-1-arnd@arndb.de>
        <20171128.100543.834604452984869251.davem@davemloft.net>
        <CAK8P3a0D++fwPCKOai-xFke6o6kBjS6XxdwB=+y5bVjr7rC6Ag@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:02:05 +0100

> Does this mean you think the general idea of an extended interface
> for 64-bit timestamps is useful for traditional packet sockets? I
> think that was still an open question, though we seem to be getting
> closer to consensus on the implementation and the interface that it
> should use if we want it.

If it can be done reasonably easy, which you patches seem to indicate
is the case, I have no objections to extending packet socket for
64-bit timestamps.

I hope that AF_CAPTURE will be designed in such a way that all apps
can migrate to it, and I will be making sure it is implemented
appropriately with that in mind.

But I don't think AF_CAPTURE should block your work here.