From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com (mail-wm0-f67.google.com [74.125.82.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1EC32C56 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:33:26 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id u63so1361596wmu.2 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:33:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=oPkFZHFCeZ8iQc0aJHEfpoo6SxhbI/RWw2IIIIaZtnc=; b=gTUfJpNxlVSHfIXLP98gSBqW1r58XMyAT9eMYEk7I7+2Tcd2Aq8MgG/IMfVqSo4fpg MHxrTbHgHGNYZk449gevxhKVlBjiALEctEIrCBGm2ZhpyLtnEgoP8WIGyepmCMKTpXBc m5zp4zUPG+a+RJZPqFBh0v3IoRIP2CrBngopHnq+aSh8U0ndGT08YJHhok0nuPIzU/4K 0QkIm7x1JDdgC4ERkgsKMweQ9Oh4vL6OdIsDqawvVTi7BS1hBHKMNmKZJf4YKwOD67Nw MH3dZlzI59S2R2doc3wktaCmEU9UFH9A7eMQL/PYEdOOtoxxRxCPGXAZcyJl4FqfisvS AYIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oPkFZHFCeZ8iQc0aJHEfpoo6SxhbI/RWw2IIIIaZtnc=; b=IBoYaTaHEE+bqrqInpAbX3kXAHoVRDmgF6pSSqF5ScOO056rSA53hG/JknLbqjrCiP R7gX02fM7FV/zEtACNEspqGLlTcWjfKZo0K/F7RSP4sxab6BwtDThfP6nn2d+CAA3I8Z 5/oaNcsayfNx3DiSgGynW6+3Uh/Qb72GDCr2gIKSFaL5oBW5qlDydKRlproSedbQKR1j 6UgwdZdZcEJJjkKyq1WwDeqGV7r+w/IRKtVoW8gQ1r68c/53pw67QWwyafa2SaLsCvzA NLzhINtdNiHEbRyqC5+v6uwWNdnfAHuA7etoQYC6qahYfLIDB/SStki/Vuqc82l9Gdbq +pLA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nFzuOuZjWH1SUMC6hDy7DGNYZ4MgyWp6t7EYHMJ1R/9DIwci53o5kls8jdVToYocbDWlE8G3FH2pm8QQ== X-Received: by 10.28.131.72 with SMTP id f69mr1636694wmd.140.1488274406250; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:33:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jblunck@gmail.com Received: by 10.28.211.20 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:33:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170228102359.5d601797@platinum> References: <1485271173-13408-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20170217115153.0afeb061@platinum> <20170217151708.20bf4a49@platinum> <20170221105400.2eba4747@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> <20170221163808.GA213576@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F11B4CC@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F11B633@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170224150053.279e718d@platinum> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F11E992@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170228102359.5d601797@platinum> From: Jan Blunck Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:33:25 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0oul0-7sF78QgBVR2rs8z0IgROk Message-ID: To: Olivier Matz Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "dev@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/8] mbuf: structure reorganization X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:33:26 -0000 On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Olivier Matz wrote: >> > >> > Do you still want to call the 64bit field "timestamp" or rename it >> > to something neutral and document that it is used together with the >> > mbuf flags? > > I think timestamp is a good name. In the current RFC patchset, we have > this comment: > > /** Valid if PKT_RX_TIMESTAMP is set. The unit is nanoseconds */ > uint64_t timestamp; > > We could change it to something like: > > /** Valid if PKT_RX_TIMESTAMP is set. The unit and time > * reference are not normalized but are always the same > * for a given port. > */ > uint64_t timestamp; > Looks good to me. Thanks, Jan