linux-kernel - Re: [RFC Patch net-next v2 3/8] net: dsa: microchip: Initial hardware time stamping support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20221124102221.2xldwevfmjbekx43@skbuf>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2022 12:22:21 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, vivien.didelot@...il.com,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, richardcochran@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next v2 3/8] net: dsa: microchip: Initial
 hardware time stamping support

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 01:57:47PM +0000, Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com wrote:
> > What's your excuse which such a horrible code pattern? What will happen
> > so bad with the packet if it's flagged with a TX timestamp request in
> > KSZ_SKB_CB(skb) at the same time as REG_PTP_MSG_CONF1 is written to?
> > 
> > Also, doesn't dev->ports[port].hwts_tx_en serve as a guard against
> > flagging packets for TX timestamps when you shouldn't?
> > 
> 
> I took this configuration template routine from other driver.

Not really a good excuse. The sja1105 driver has more hardware-specific
issues to deal with, not necessarily the same as ksz.

> Can I replace above snippet with
> 
> tagger_data->hwtstamp_set_state(dev->ds, rx_on);
> ret = ksz_ptp_enable_mode(dev, rx_on);
> if (ret)
>     return ret;

Why do you need to call hwtstamp_set_state anyway?