netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] net: dsa: microchip: fix PTP config failure when using multiple ports

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: <45a00063-b3a4-470a-bfd3-d14bdec6a48f@martin-whitaker.me.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 11:21:54 +0100
From: Martin Whitaker <foss@...tin-whitaker.me.uk>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
 Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com, ceggers@...i.de, arun.ramadoss@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: dsa: microchip: fix PTP config failure when
 using multiple ports

On 17/08/2024 19:57, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 10:41:41AM +0100, Martin Whitaker wrote:
>> When performing the port_hwtstamp_set operation, ptp_schedule_worker()
>> will be called if hardware timestamoing is enabled on any of the ports.
>> When using multiple ports for PTP, port_hwtstamp_set is executed for
>> each port. When called for the first time ptp_schedule_worker() returns
>> 0. On subsequent calls it returns 1, indicating the worker is already
>> scheduled. Currently the ksz driver treats 1 as an error and fails to
>> complete the port_hwtstamp_set operation, thus leaving the timestamping
>> configuration for those ports unchanged.
>>
>> This patch fixes this by ignoring the ptp_schedule_worker() return
>> value.
>>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/7aae307a-35ca-4209-a850-7b2749d40f90@martin-whitaker.me.uk/
>> Fixes: bb01ad30570b0 ("net: dsa: microchip: ptp: manipulating absolute time using ptp hw clock")
>> Signed-off-by: Martin Whitaker <foss@...tin-whitaker.me.uk>
>> Cc: stable@...ble@...r.kernel.org
>
> One stable@ is sufficient. Did i mess that up when i asked you to add
> it?

Yes. Annoyingly I noticed it when I first read your reply, but forgot
when I later copy/pasted it into the commit message.

> Apart from that:
>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
>
> It is better to put your Signed-off-by last, because each Maintainer
> handling the patch appends there own. So it keeps them together. But
> there is no need to repost.

Thanks.