From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Denny Page Subject: Re: Extending socket timestamping API for NTP Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:37:38 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20170207140144.GA11233@localhost> <20170209080242.GA1698@localhost.localdomain> <20170209110941.GA1449@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Miroslav Lichvar , Richard Cochran , netdev , Jiri Benc , "Keller, Jacob E" , Willem de Bruijn To: sdncurious Return-path: Received: from st11p06im-asmtp002.me.com ([17.172.125.150]:35579 "EHLO st11p06im-asmtp002.me.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753362AbdBIUiA (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:38:00 -0500 Received: from process-dkim-sign-daemon.st11p06im-asmtp002.me.com by st11p06im-asmtp002.me.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.38.0 64bit (built Feb 26 2016)) id <0OL400800JXLRA00@st11p06im-asmtp002.me.com> for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 20:37:42 +0000 (GMT) In-reply-to: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On Feb 09, 2017, at 11:42, sdncurious wrote: >=20 > As you are using HW that supports NTP time stamping won't it by > default time stamp the receiving packet correctly at the CRC ? Or if > someone came out with such a HW than what ? As discussed in private email, all hardware operates at the end of the = SFD, and in makes sense for the hardware to always do so regardless of = what protocol is passing through. Denny