Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 01:25:51 -0500 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_icmp.c Message-ID: <200012170625.eBH6Pp510577@whizzo.transsys.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:39:49 PST." <200012162139.eBGLdnX07481@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <200012162139.eBGLdnX07481@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> billf 2000/12/16 13:39:49 PST > > Modified files: > sys/netinet ip_icmp.c > Log: > Use getmicrotime() instead of microtime() when timestamping ICMP packets, > the former is quicker and accurate enough for use here. Accurate enough for who, and for what use? I'm just wondering that with the addition of being able to rate-limit ICMP Timestamp reply messages why we'd go to the trouble to degrade the quality of the timestamps returned? Sure, you can ask with NTP, but that results in having to (very likely) perform a context switch into a user process. louie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012170625.eBH6Pp510577>