linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4 net-next] ptp/ioctl: support MONOTONIC_RAW timestamps for PTP_SYS_OFFSET

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]

Message-ID: <878r0inm1c.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 09:50:07 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Sagi
 Maimon <maimon.sagi@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, John
 Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 net-next] ptp/ioctl: support MONOTONIC_RAW timestamps
 for PTP_SYS_OFFSET_EXTENDED

On Thu, May 09 2024 at 21:07, Richard Cochran wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 09:38:58AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, May 07 2024 at 21:44, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 02:10:47PM -0700, Mahesh Bandewar wrote:
>> >> + * History:
>> >> + * v1: Initial implementation.
>> >> + *
>> >> + * v2: Use the first word of the reserved-field for @clockid. That's
>> >> + *     backward compatible since v1 expects all three reserved words
>> >> + *     (@rsv[3]) to be 0 while the clockid (first word in v2) for
>> >> + *     CLOCK_REALTIME is '0'.
>
> ..
>
>> I agree that it wants to be in the commit message, but having the
>> version information in the kernel-doc which describes the UAPI is
>> sensible and useful. That's where I'd look first and asking a user to
>> dig up this information on lore is not really helpful.
>
> But writing "v1, v2" doesn't make sense for this code.  There never
> was a "v1" for this ioctl.  At the very least, the change should be
> identified by kernel version (or git SHA).

Adding the git SHA before committing the change is going to be
challenging :)