Ander Juaristi <a@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't think this would make sense. > > Would require statements such as "meta time 1562005920098458691". That > is totally unfriendly to the end user. We do not necessarily need to expose this on nft side. e.g. user says meta time 1562018374 and nft converts this to 1562018374000000000 internally. Or did you mean that this might cause confusion as this might never match at all? In such a case, we'd have to internally rewrite meta time 1562018374 to meta time 1562018374-1562018375 (reg1 >= 1562018374000000000 and <= 1562018375000000000). We could also expose/support the suffixes we support for timeouts, e.g.: 3512312s, 1000ms and so on. > But maybe I didn't understand what you meant here. Maybe you meant to > replace get_seconds() with ktime_get_real_ns(), and divide the result by > 10e-9 to get seconds? No, thats not what I meant. I was just thinking that having ns-resolution exposed to registers might allow to use this for e.g. sampling packet arrival time. Its not a big deal, we can add this later when such a use case pops up and keep seconds resolution.
