netdev - Re: [PATCH iwl-net] igc: Remove stale comment about Tx timestamping

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: <a52cfb3e-dae5-4f23-8625-2e489281f0e8@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:22:28 +0100
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
CC: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>, Jesse Brandeburg
	<jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Vladimir
 Oltean" <vladimir.oltean@....com>, Vinicius Costa Gomes
	<vinicius.gomes@...el.com>, Muhammad Husaini Zulkifli
	<muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net] igc: Remove stale comment about Tx timestamping

On 3/14/24 11:35, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2024-03-14 11:21:38 [+0100], Przemek Kitszel wrote:
>> On 3/13/24 14:03, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
>>> The initial igc Tx timestamping implementation used only one register for
>>> retrieving Tx timestamps. Commit 3ed247e78911 ("igc: Add support for
>>> multiple in-flight TX timestamps") added support for utilizing all four of
>>> them e.g., for multiple domain support. Remove the stale comment/FIXME.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 3ed247e78911 ("igc: Add support for multiple in-flight TX timestamps")
>>
>> I would remove fixes tag (but keep the mention in commit msg).
>> And I would also target it to iwl-next when the window will open.
>>
>> Rationale: it's really not a fix.
> 
> It is a fix as it removes something that is not accurate. But it only
> changes a comment so it has not outcome in the binary. I think what you
> mean is that you wish that it will not be backported stable. Still
> people reading the code of a v6.6 kernel might get confused.
> 
> Sebastian
> 

You are right that this will cause no harm to backport it as is too,
I'm fine with that after a second though, so:

Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>