[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <412a7fee-daec-496d-990a-642f2787d5cc@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 14:27:53 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Meghana Malladi <m-malladi@...com>, Richard Cochran
<richardcochran@...il.com>, <lokeshvutla@...com>, <vigneshr@...com>,
<javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>, <diogo.ivo@...mens.com>,
<horms@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <srk@...com>, Roger Quadros
<rogerq@...nel.org>, <danishanwar@...com>
Subject: Re: Plan to validate supported flags in PTP core (Was: Re: [PATCH net
v2 0/2] Fixes for perout configuration in IEP driver)
On 3/10/2025 9:25 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:48:27 -0800 Jacob Keller wrote:
>> Would a series with individual patches for the 3 special cases + one
>> patch to handle all the drivers that have no explicit flag check be
>> acceptable? Or should I do individual patches for each driver and just
>> break the series up? Or are we ok with just fixing this in next with the
>> .supported_extts_flags change?
>
> A mass rejection of unsupported settings feels like a net-next material
> in general. Handling the more complex cases individually and the rest in
> a big patch makes sense.
Alright. I think the three cases with drivers that check flags but do so
incorrectly are worth going to net. I'll send that series shortly, and
will follow up with the next series that introduces the supported flags
knobs afterwards.
Thanks,
Jake
Powered by blists - more mailing lists