Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 2/5] net: Add ifreq pointer field to kernel_hwtstamp_config structure

Max Georgiev
2023-05-04T15:21:55Z

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 22:31:47 -0600 Maxim Georgiev wrote:
> > + err = dev_eth_ioctl(dev, &ifrr, SIOCSHWTSTAMP);
> > + if (!err) {
> > + kernel_cfg->ifr->ifr_ifru = ifrr.ifr_ifru;
> > + kernel_cfg->kernel_flags |= KERNEL_HWTSTAMP_FLAG_IFR_RESULT;
> > + }
> > + return err;
>
> nit: I think we should stick to the normal flow even if it costs
> a few extra lines:
>
> err = dev_eth_ioctl(..
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> kernel_cfg->ifr->ifr_ifru = ifrr.ifr_ifru;
> kernel_cfg->kernel_flags |= KERNEL_HWTSTAMP_FLAG_IFR_RESULT;
>
> return 0;
>
>
> Other than that patches LGTM :)

Got it, wil update both generic_hwtstamp_get_lower() and
generic_hwtstamp_set_lower().

What would be the best practice with updating a single patch in a
stack (or a couple of
patches in a stack)? Should I resend only the updated patch(es), or
should I increment the
patch stack revision and resend all the parches?