[dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/8] mbuf: structure reorganization

[Jan Blunck]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com> 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