netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/6] ethtool: add interface to read Tx hardware timestamping statistics

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: <20240314120647.58a07d94@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:06:47 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@...dia.com>
Cc: ahmed.zaki@...el.com, aleksander.lobakin@...el.com,
 alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, andrew@...n.ch, corbet@....net,
 davem@...emloft.net, dtatulea@...dia.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
 gal@...dia.com, hkallweit1@...il.com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
 jiri@...nulli.us, joabreu@...opsys.com, justinstitt@...gle.com,
 kory.maincent@...tlin.com, leon@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, liuhangbin@...il.com,
 maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
 paul.greenwalt@...el.com, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com,
 rdunlap@...radead.org, richardcochran@...il.com, saeed@...nel.org,
 tariqt@...dia.com, vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, vladimir.oltean@....com,
 wojciech.drewek@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/6] ethtool: add interface to read Tx hardware
 timestamping statistics

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:43:07 -0700 Rahul Rameshbabu wrote:
> > I don't understand.
> > Are you sure you changef the kernel to use uint, rebuilt and
> > there is no ETHTOOL_A_TS_STAT_PAD anywhere, anymore?  
> 
> Sorry, I was not as clear as I could have been with my last reply. I did
> leave ETHTOOL_A_TS_STAT_PAD in when I tested (intentionally). I was
> trying to mimic other ethtool stats implementations, but you are saying
> that in general there is no need for this padding (which I agree with)
> and I can remove that unnecessary offset. It'll be different from the
> existing stats, but I am ok with that.

Yes, the small divergence is fine - uint is pretty recent addition.