On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 9:27 PM Fred Klassen <fklassen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Willem, this is only my 2nd patch, and my last one was a one liner. > I’ll try to work through this, but let me know if I am doing a rookie > mistake (learning curve and all). Not at all. The fix makes perfect sense. The test patches 2 and 4 are not fixes, so are better suited to to net-next. Perhaps the changes to the test can also be more concise, just the minimal changes needed to demonstrate the bug and fix. > >> tss = (struct my_scm_timestamping *)CMSG_DATA(cmsg); > >> - fprintf(stderr, "tx timestamp = %lu.%09lu\n", > >> - tss->ts[i].tv_sec, tss->ts[i].tv_nsec); > >> + if (tss->ts[i].tv_sec == 0) > >> + stat_tx_ts_errors++; > >> + if (cfg_verbose) > >> + fprintf(stderr, "tx timestamp = %lu.%09lu\n", > >> + tss->ts[i].tv_sec, tss->ts[i].tv_nsec); > > > > changes unrelated to this feature? > > I’ll remove. Do you think that I should pull out any messages related > to “cfg_verbose”? This change did not seem relevant to the main feature of the patch.
