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

Message-ID: <87frffknrr.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2025 10:19:52 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 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 16:56, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:23:39 +0200 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > 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).
>
> Sorry about that, I read the previous cover letter as the branch being
> provided for convenience, not that I _should_ pull from it. I should
> have asked..

I should have made it entirely clear. Next time :)