[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd7258b4-266f-420a-b751-4429772a47b5@linux.dev>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 12:38:25 +0000
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] bnx2x: convert to use ndo_hwtstamp
callbacks
On 08/11/2025 02:41, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2025 21:37:16 +0000 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>> + switch (config->tx_type) {
>> + case HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC:
>> + case HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_P2P:
>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
>> + "One-step timestamping is not supported");
>> + return -ERANGE;
>> + default:
>> + break;
>> + }
>
> This is the wrong way around, if someone adds a new value unsupported
> by the driver it will pass. We should be listing the supported types
> and
>
> default:
> ...ERR_MSG..
> return -ERANGE;
> }
But that's the original logic of the driver. Should I change it within
the same patch, or is it better to make a follow-up work to clean such
things in net-next?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists