linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/3] ptp: Provide support for auxiliary clocks 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: <871pr0m75g.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:23:39 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
 Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>, John Stultz
 <jstultz@...gle.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
 Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Miroslav Lichvar
 <mlichvar@...hat.com>, Werner Abt <werner.abt@...nberg-usa.com>, David
 Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Thomas
 Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>, Kurt
 Kanzenbach
 <kurt@...utronix.de>, Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>, Antoine Tenart
 <atenart@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] ptp: Provide support for auxiliary clocks for
 PTP_SYS_OFFSET_EXTENDED

On Tue, Jul 01 2025 at 12:16, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 6/26/25 3:27 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> It is also available via git with all prerequisite patches:
>> 
>>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/devel.git timers/ptp/driver-auxclock
>> 
>> Miroslav: This branch should enable you to test the actual steering via a
>> 	  PTP device which has PTP_SYS_OFFSET_EXTENDED support in the driver.
>
> I have some dumb issues merging this on net-next.
>
> It looks like we should pull from the above URL, but it looks like the
> prereq series there has different hashes WRT the tip tree. Pulling from
> there will cause good bunch of duplicate commits - the pre-req series vs
> the tip tree and the ptp cleanup series vs already merge commits on
> net-next.
>
> I guess we want to avoid such duplicates, but I don't see how to avoid
> all of them. A stable branch on top of current net-next will avoid the
> ptp cleanup series duplicates, but will not avoid duplicates for
> prereqs. Am I missing something obvious?

No. I messed that up by not telling that the PTP series should be
applied as a seperate branch, which is merged into net-next. That way I
could have merged that branch back into tip and apply this pile on top.

Let me think about an elegant way to make this work without creating an
utter mess in either of the trees (or both).

Thanks,

        tglx