netdev - Re: [PATCH iwl-net] igc: Remove stale comment about Tx timestamping

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:35:45 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Cc: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
	Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
	Muhammad Husaini Zulkifli <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net] igc: Remove stale comment about Tx timestamping

On 2024-03-14 11:21:38 [+0100], Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> On 3/13/24 14:03, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> > The initial igc Tx timestamping implementation used only one register for
> > retrieving Tx timestamps. Commit 3ed247e78911 ("igc: Add support for
> > multiple in-flight TX timestamps") added support for utilizing all four of
> > them e.g., for multiple domain support. Remove the stale comment/FIXME.
> > 
> > Fixes: 3ed247e78911 ("igc: Add support for multiple in-flight TX timestamps")
> 
> I would remove fixes tag (but keep the mention in commit msg).
> And I would also target it to iwl-next when the window will open.
> 
> Rationale: it's really not a fix.

It is a fix as it removes something that is not accurate. But it only
changes a comment so it has not outcome in the binary. I think what you
mean is that you wish that it will not be backported stable. Still
people reading the code of a v6.6 kernel might get confused.

Sebastian