From: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:49:46 +0300

quoted text
> On Thursday 24 July 2008, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > Adding new fields to struct sk_buff that take up space is generally
> > not allowed unless the new field adds substantially to the benefit of
> > a large group of users of Linus.
> >
> > I don't think that applied here for this hw-tstamps stuff.
> 
> What about the approach proposed in the patch? Is it ok to add a pointer which 
> may resolve other future similar issues?

Traversing the list and maintaining the reference counting and sharing
issues is expensive and error prone.

This is what OpenBSD uses for their IPSEC state attached to MBUFs and
it's a nightmare.

We have a timestamp in the SKB already, why don't you simply override
it when your feature is enable and set a single flag bit that
indicates you used a HW timestamp to set that timestamp?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html