netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] gve: Correctly report software timestamping capabilities

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: <66175758bab7c_2dcc3c294a@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 23:22:00 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
 John Fraker <jfraker@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>, 
 Harshitha Ramamurthy <hramamurthy@...gle.com>, 
 Shailend Chand <shailend@...gle.com>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, 
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
 Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@...el.com>, 
 Ziwei Xiao <ziweixiao@...gle.com>, 
 Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@...gle.com>, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] gve: Correctly report software timestamping
 capabilities

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon,  8 Apr 2024 11:09:01 -0700 John Fraker wrote:
> > gve has supported software timestamp generation since its inception,
> > but has not advertised that support via ethtool. This patch correctly
> > advertises that support.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Harshitha Ramamurthy <hramamurthy@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: John Fraker <jfraker@...gle.com>
> 
> I think it should be a single line diff:
> 
> +	.get_ts_info = ethtool_op_get_ts_info,
> 
> right?

If inserted above .get_link_ksettings that works. The current
ordering is not based on actual struct layout anyway.

Probably all statements should just end in a comma, including a
trailing comma. To avoid these two line changes on each subsequent
change.

The rest of the discussion in this thread is actually quite
unrelated to this patch. Didn't meant to sidetrack that.