[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211209213837.GA21948@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:38:37 -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 01:33:47PM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> 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.
Ok, it can be an enum (to be like the other fields in this header) but
still the bits need to be independent of each other.
IOW, you should drop __HWTSTAMP_FLAGS_CNT and instead use a mask of
valid bits.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists