All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net 08/13] ptp: Introduce strict checking of external time stamp options.
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:44:10 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191114194410.GB19147@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB589698F6E0@ORSMSX121.amr.corp.intel.com>

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 07:12:38PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> So, this patch adds the flag *and* modifies the drivers to accept it, but not actually enable strict checking?
> 
> I'd prefer if this flag got added, and the drivers were modified in separate patches to both allow the flag and to perform the strict check.. that feels like a cleaner patch boundary.
> 
> That would ofcourse break the drivers that reject the strict command until they're fixed in follow-on commands.. hmm

You are right, but if anything I'd squash the following four driver
patches into this one.  I left the series in little steps just to make
review easier.  Strictly speaking, if you were to do a git bisect from
the introduction of the "2" ioctls until here, you would find drivers'
acceptance of the new flags changing.  But it is too late to fix that,
and I doubt anyone will care.

IMHO it *is* important to have v5.4 with strict checking.

Thanks,
Richard

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org"
	<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Brandon Streiff <brandon.streiff@ni.com>,
	"Hall, Christopher S" <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>,
	Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@mellanox.com>,
	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>,
	Feras Daoud <ferasda@mellanox.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>,
	Stefan Sorensen <stefan.sorensen@spectralink.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 08/13] ptp: Introduce strict checking of external time stamp options.
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:44:10 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191114194410.GB19147@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB589698F6E0@ORSMSX121.amr.corp.intel.com>

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 07:12:38PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> So, this patch adds the flag *and* modifies the drivers to accept it, but not actually enable strict checking?
> 
> I'd prefer if this flag got added, and the drivers were modified in separate patches to both allow the flag and to perform the strict check.. that feels like a cleaner patch boundary.
> 
> That would ofcourse break the drivers that reject the strict command until they're fixed in follow-on commands.. hmm

You are right, but if anything I'd squash the following four driver
patches into this one.  I left the series in little steps just to make
review easier.  Strictly speaking, if you were to do a git bisect from
the introduction of the "2" ioctls until here, you would find drivers'
acceptance of the new flags changing.  But it is too late to fix that,
and I doubt anyone will care.

IMHO it *is* important to have v5.4 with strict checking.

Thanks,
Richard

  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-14 19:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-14 18:45 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net 08/13] ptp: Introduce strict checking of external time stamp options Richard Cochran
2019-11-14 18:45 ` Richard Cochran
2019-11-14 19:12 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Keller, Jacob E
2019-11-14 19:12   ` Keller, Jacob E
2019-11-14 19:44   ` Richard Cochran [this message]
2019-11-14 19:44     ` Richard Cochran
2019-11-14 21:29     ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Keller, Jacob E
2019-11-14 21:29       ` Keller, Jacob E

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191114194410.GB19147@localhost \
    --to=richardcochran@gmail.com \
    --cc=intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.