netdev - Re: PHC device sharing between PCI functions

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: <1372948466.1853.1.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jul 2013 15:34:26 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC:	linux-net-drivers <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Laurence Evans <levans@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: PHC device sharing between PCI functions

On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 07:36 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 08:52:33PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > 
> > So you think each function should have its own clock device, but it's
> > only writable on one?  I think that would work, but I thought it would
> > be undesirable to have multiple aliases for the same physical clock.
> 
> The aliases would not bother me, as long as the ethtool interface-to-phc
> association works properly.

Well what would be 'properly' in this case?

> Of course, if there is a way to suppress
> the aliases in the non-VM case, that would be ideal.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html