From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A96B11F5 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:59:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so129774399wme.0 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 03:59:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=N7DzratieTuxNaUzUSNUl3WNXtLUYbF5XXzuTWlcOeI=; b=VNYIPSNGRsGgfZwWWUe7bah7VLI0dQkv0pkeSqCbiwyK2i+pkmdIJgcCbQwZFRJwh6 kN6FRjEh9IyTytyyHQO7SKiFad6TzTu+VxfLtONUXjSI/pP3OlPIVnrmX4AXHZKBlwH9 A/ihjzNke1Pr6Csf95EG1qH/96P41CLvfTCAkxpWOT+RKC2ozs+tuxEXfrVuq6jV3QNM zD8k5G7hlR99FPCNQtQxMa6VkUy0/kxOC/VPdIybRTyk7Axl79Hfzx14zLuu0GxWm4c/ pgnOHFNYowe+tCFezF0+6ltmHBVW2GriCF5ALNy716PxIgWVEp1MSI9Q1+1RQVmOYYBA fNgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=N7DzratieTuxNaUzUSNUl3WNXtLUYbF5XXzuTWlcOeI=; b=bzxWKjHFOWku6uySr3f2+61pLCQhOKyFOW/RdwOmtHw2k9+L4duFH3RiHPtNvXSrG1 1KdwRw1G+TbOKGRlxLvm2qmLrdb9+PvU9YUFiMG2aY6HpkiLVAMauWvkxSIw020UEBKW FaoGUrU/dVMrzBj+uObd7v5uFMqO6xJAB0HQp3wXDDsw0ky8hfRE96j+Baxo0INQ46jx X0xZwJVSHuFGAP081ibmJs0L77DpT39Ro4sWHUg8vF0GReanHek3qf8X/hv7MwU5LXt6 by1VGVmCvy5BqmUQI6GdjxB24S6xYg63Jhdm+m3efT4qdGvejd1lxZ3D0zsZQ728wZTT hlqw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQls2mjnX7kZrjk+XYjse1JnxRl6bR9wudpGXdKiPCXVO1eGRMVqGS5we41g4L4ZO/YAAIA0 X-Received: by 10.28.23.211 with SMTP id 202mr4145234wmx.81.1447156760286; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 03:59:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l81sm3749333wmb.2.2015.11.10.03.59.17 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Nov 2015 03:59:18 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Mcnamara, John" Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:58:07 +0100 Message-ID: <3893351.MZRdjpoyuB@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1443799208-9408-1-git-send-email-danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com> <2257223.vnG0RKMETz@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] ethdev: add additional ieee1588 support functions X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:59:20 -0000 2015-11-10 11:36, Mcnamara, John: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > I'll try to fix it now to be sure it will be one of the first series ready > > for the 2.3 cycle. > > These comments are minor and could be fixed now. After having a closer look in the drivers change, it seems to be restricted to the PTP functions of the Intel drivers. So you can ask to the Intel validation team if they are OK to add it in RC2. I think it would be a wrong idea because we need to stop moving the ethdev and drivers code, and focus on other DPDK areas for the RC2. > > > +extern int rte_eth_timesync_time_get(uint8_t port_id, > > > + struct timespec *time); > > > > How is it different from rte_eth_timesync_read_rx_timestamp() and > > rte_eth_timesync_read_tx_timestamp()? > > > > Why repeating the word time? Why not rte_eth_timesync_get()? > > In the context of PTP there is a difference between the time (os or NIC) and the timestamp (either in the mbuf, a register or as part of the payload). Do you think we can make it clear in the definition of these functions? More wording comments: - rte_eth_timesync_time_get - rte_eth_timesync_read_rx_timestamp Why is it "get" in a case and "read" in another? Why the verb is at the end in the first and before the complement in the latter?