lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/8] socket: Disentangle SOCK_RCVTSTAMPNS from SOCK_RCVTSTAMP
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 12:06 AM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:59 PM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 3:59 AM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@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?

The existing logic is as is for a reason. There is no need to change
it to satisfy the main purpose of your patchset?

It is structured as one bit to test whether a timestamp is requested
and another to select among two variants usec/nsec. Just add another
layer of branching between new/old in cases where this distinction is
needed.

Please avoid code churn unless needed.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-25 15:20    [W:0.061 / U:2.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site