netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v5 00/12] Add support for Rx timestamping for both ice and iavf drivers.

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: <f4696921-caf3-4873-b5ca-0b4f6a993cac@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:37:14 +0200
From: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>
To: Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@...dia.com>
CC: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<horms@...nel.org>, <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v5 00/12] Add support for Rx
 timestamping for both ice and iavf drivers.



On 4/18/2024 10:19 PM, Rahul Rameshbabu wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 18 Apr, 2024 01:24:48 -0400 Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com> wrote:
>> Initially, during VF creation it registers the PTP clock in
>> the system and negotiates with PF it's capabilities. In the
>> meantime the PF enables the Flexible Descriptor for VF.
>> Only this type of descriptor allows to receive Rx timestamps.
>>
>> Enabling virtual clock would be possible, though it would probably
>> perform poorly due to the lack of direct time access.
>>
>> Enable timestamping should be done using SIOCSHWTSTAMP ioctl,
>> e.g.
>> hwstamp_ctl -i $VF -r 14
>>
>> In order to report the timestamps to userspace, the VF extends
>> timestamp to 40b.
>>
>> To support this feature the flexible descriptors and PTP part
>> in iavf driver have been introduced.
>>
>> ---
> 
> Just one general/cosmetic comment. It might make more sense for the
> Reviewed-by: trailer to come after the Signed-off-by: trailer, since the
> review happens after the patches have been written.
> 
> --
> Thanks,
> 
> Rahul Rameshbabu

Hmmm... I think that the Signed-off-by added by sender should be the
last one on the list if there is Co-developed-by before.

Thanks for overall review!
Mateusz