[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB589698FABB@ORSMSX121.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:29:14 +0000
From: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Brandon Streiff <brandon.streiff@...com>,
"Hall, Christopher S" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>,
Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.com>,
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
Feras Daoud <ferasda@...lanox.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
Stefan Sorensen <stefan.sorensen@...ctralink.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net 08/13] ptp: Introduce strict checking of external
time stamp options.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:44 AM
> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org; David Miller
> <davem@...emloft.net>; Brandon Streiff <brandon.streiff@...com>; Hall,
> Christopher S <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>; Eugenia Emantayev
> <eugenia@...lanox.com>; Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>; Feras
> Daoud <ferasda@...lanox.com>; Kirsher, Jeffrey T
> <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>; Sergei Shtylyov
> <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>; Stefan Sorensen
> <stefan.sorensen@...ctralink.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net 08/13] ptp: Introduce strict checking of external time
> stamp options.
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 07:12:38PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > So, this patch adds the flag *and* modifies the drivers to accept it, but not
> actually enable strict checking?
> >
> > I'd prefer if this flag got added, and the drivers were modified in separate
> patches to both allow the flag and to perform the strict check.. that feels like a
> cleaner patch boundary.
> >
> > That would ofcourse break the drivers that reject the strict command until
> they're fixed in follow-on commands.. hmm
>
> You are right, but if anything I'd squash the following four driver
> patches into this one. I left the series in little steps just to make
> review easier. Strictly speaking, if you were to do a git bisect from
> the introduction of the "2" ioctls until here, you would find drivers'
> acceptance of the new flags changing. But it is too late to fix that,
> and I doubt anyone will care.
>
> IMHO it *is* important to have v5.4 with strict checking.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
Yes I agree. I think the series is good as is, and having this fixed before the ioctls have been in a full release makes sense.
Thanks,
Jake
Powered by blists - more mailing lists