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: <1889bdbd-2fd3-4383-8df6-ab928c0b0bd8@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:08:47 +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 4/23/2024 7:57 AM, Rahul Rameshbabu wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 22 Apr, 2024 11:37:14 +0200 Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Sorry, my bad, I should have expressed this better. On the first patch
> for example.
> 
> My expectation for the trailer order would have been the following.
> 
>    Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
>    Reviewed-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
>    Signed-off-by: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>
> 
> instead of
> 
>    Reviewed-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
>    Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
>    Signed-off-by: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>
> 
> I think for the ones with Co-developed-by:, you are right that the
> ordering would be strange to re-arrange.
> 

Ahhh... Now I see, You are right! I will fix that order in next version.
Thanks

> --
> Thanks,
> 
> Rahul Rameshbabu
>