[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211209213347.GE21819@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:33:47 -0800
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 1/2] net_tstamp: add new flag
HWTSTAMP_FLAG_BONDED_PHC_INDEX
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 06:24:48PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> +/* possible values for hwtstamp_config->flags */
> +enum hwtstamp_flags {
> + /*
> + * With this flag, the user could get bond active interface's
> + * PHC index. Note this PHC index is not stable as when there
> + * is a failover, the bond active interface will be changed, so
> + * will be the PHC index.
> + */
> + HWTSTAMP_FLAG_BONDED_PHC_INDEX = (1<<0),
> +
> + /* add new constants above here */
> + __HWTSTAMP_FLAGS_CNT
> +};
I think this shouldn't be an enumerated type, but rather simply a bit
field of independent options.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists