linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] gve: Correctly report software timestamping capabilities

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGH0z2Hn-D1_wEZEN-Y9+hO1c+Ddn3dsO5_XCG6qQ8KioeGeGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:37:11 -0700
From: John Fraker <jfraker@...gle.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>, Harshitha Ramamurthy <hramamurthy@...gle.com>, 
	Shailend Chand <shailend@...gle.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@...el.com>, 
	Ziwei Xiao <ziweixiao@...gle.com>, Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] gve: Correctly report software timestamping capabilities

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 8:22 PM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon,  8 Apr 2024 11:09:01 -0700 John Fraker wrote:
> > > gve has supported software timestamp generation since its inception,
> > > but has not advertised that support via ethtool. This patch correctly
> > > advertises that support.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Harshitha Ramamurthy <hramamurthy@...gle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: John Fraker <jfraker@...gle.com>
> >
> > I think it should be a single line diff:
> >
> > +     .get_ts_info = ethtool_op_get_ts_info,
> >
> > right?
>
> If inserted above .get_link_ksettings that works. The current
> ordering is not based on actual struct layout anyway.
>
> Probably all statements should just end in a comma, including a
> trailing comma. To avoid these two line changes on each subsequent
> change.

Thanks all!

I'll send the one-line v2.

> The rest of the discussion in this thread is actually quite
> unrelated to this patch. Didn't meant to sidetrack that.