linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: ptp: introduce .supported_extts_flags to ptp_clock

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: <53674f44-abee-4208-bc32-cb0eacf33a2d@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:00:20 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, "David
 S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Paolo
 Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	"Przemek Kitszel" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Saeed Mahameed
	<saeedm@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Tariq Toukan
	<tariqt@...dia.com>, "Bryan Whitehead" <bryan.whitehead@...rochip.com>,
	<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, Horatiu Vultur
	<horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>, Paul Barker <paul.barker.ct@...renesas.com>,
	Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>, Richard
 Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Andrei Botila
	<andrei.botila@....nxp.com>, Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: ptp: introduce .supported_extts_flags
 to ptp_clock_info



On 4/11/2025 6:20 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Sorry for the late nit but the conversion is pretty inconsistent..
> 
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2025 13:55:14 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:

8<--

>> @@ -1378,6 +1368,8 @@ void igb_ptp_init(struct igb_adapter *adapter)
>>  		adapter->ptp_caps.n_ext_ts = IGB_N_EXTTS;
>>  		adapter->ptp_caps.n_per_out = IGB_N_PEROUT;
>>  		adapter->ptp_caps.n_pins = IGB_N_SDP;
>> +		adapter->ptp_caps.supported_extts_flags = PTP_EXTTS_EDGES |
>> +							  PTP_STRICT_FLAGS;
> 
> sometimes you both drop the enabled and combine the edges 
> 
>>  		adapter->ptp_caps.pps = 1;
>>  		adapter->ptp_caps.pin_config = adapter->sdp_config;
>>  		adapter->ptp_caps.adjfine = igb_ptp_adjfine_82580;
> 
> No preference which version you pick but shouldn't we go with one?
> Or is this on purpose to show we have no preference?

It wasn't on purpose. Honestly not sure how they ended up different. I
think the right thing is:

a) drop the ENABLE since we always accept that regardless of whether its
in supported_extts_flags

b) don't use PTP_EXTTS_EDGES in the supported flags, since its easier to
see which specific flags are supported if you aren't having to remember
that the macro means multiple flags.

I'll update in a v2 to be consistent.

Thanks,
Jake