linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/2] ptp: introduce Alibaba CIPU PHC driver

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: <fb01b35d-55a8-4313-ad14-b529b63c9e04@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2025 22:03:57 +0800
From: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
 xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/2] ptp: introduce Alibaba CIPU PHC driver

On 2025/12/13 06:50, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 14:50:13 +0800 Wen Gu wrote:
>> Given that net-next is closed and the EOY break is here, I was wondering
>> whether the review discussion might continue during this period or should
>> wait until after the break.
> 
> This is a somewhat frustrating thing to hear. My position is that
> net-next is not the right home for this work, so its status should
> be irrelevant.

Hi Jakub, I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why you object to
this being a PTP clock driver and to placing it under `drivers/ptp`.
Could you please explain your reasons?

You mentioned that it's unrelated to networking, but most of the drivers
under `drivers/ptp` are also unrelated to networking. PTP implementations
that are independent of network drivers are placed here.

If the PTP HARDWARE CLOCK SUPPORT maintainers don't review it, which
subsystem should I go to?

If you're suggesting creating a new subsystem, I think we should first
answer this question: why can't it be part of the current ptp subsystem,
and what are the differences between the drivers under `drivers/ptp`
and those in the new subsystem?

Thanks, and sorry for bothering you during your EOY break.

Regards.