[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZZjfC9LvQFrtwu_x@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 21:03:07 -0800
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@...gle.com>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Don Hatchett <hatch@...gle.com>, Yuliang Li <yuliangli@...gle.com>,
Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 net-next 2/3] ptp: add ioctl interface for
ptp_gettimex64any()
On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 08:55:46PM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 09:51:40AM -0800, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote:
>
> > POSIX clocks are employed in this series for syscall width
> > measurement, potentially leading to misunderstandings about
> > overlapping functionality. However, their roles are distinct and serve
> > different purposes.
>
> I don't see any difference in purposes. The multi_clock_gettime call
> is a more general solution. Thus it will obviate the need for any new
> PTP ioctls.
And to be clear, I object to the third patch, the new ioctl.
ptp_clock_info.gettimex64any() can and should be presented as an
optimized back end for the multi_clock_gettime system call.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists