Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support

On Tue, 2024-07-16 at 13:54 +0200, Peter Hilber wrote:
> On 08.07.24 11:27, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * Time according to time_type field above.
> > +        */
> > +       uint64_t time_sec;              /* Seconds since time_type epoch */
> > +       uint64_t time_frac_sec;         /* (seconds >> 64) */
> > +       uint64_t time_esterror_picosec; /* (± picoseconds) */
> > +       uint64_t time_maxerror_picosec; /* (± picoseconds) */
> 
> Is this unsigned or signed?

The field itself is unsigned, as it provides the absolute value of the
error (which can be in either direction). Probably better just to drop
the ± from the comment.

Julien is now back from vacation and I'm expecting to see his opinion
on whether we can change that to nanoseconds for consistency.