From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1607344B660 for ; Thu, 7 May 2026 15:43:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778168632; cv=none; b=Iae6YXMin/ldFwJ6USazH0mXZ7AGsa6QavawGaFrxIA9W2bkvTCHjga1/vnroYMkij5wdBe/NiCLrXEkUBwQdhzvKu9uIzMpB7f+yGHVknzNbo4MItSoKmoqUNlRLA6qz/GuKnLbd5y8DK2+TemqfNudaSPRlqFY8oBO6UpUvoI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778168632; c=relaxed/simple; bh=P7Sn+Fs+ZZC/HbmNZYh4z691QWsLzskGeA1htl76TDY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=SPCnbptkz52WHPmrrUAGcrn1EuBDYZupm+zOurQLdKiQuwgBaMbEGoEmNRURDrSbRfrFNnM9keeBkycsUG4cu1YiPIkNW9CWM+eCMWhBC1DiuVVmLdekdFy5R9OVTEI4ivd796hpNNW14GafgAkON9fwqukTkK+MjFFtQQ8ymew= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=mXlN08fK; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=4Q/atyUA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="mXlN08fK"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="4Q/atyUA" Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 17:43:47 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1778168629; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sYDv2Kjb6ZzSh7a0vF2vmIuJFZvf3kVZ5O9qkmo+ZZ8=; b=mXlN08fKhc9xYgLlLi1xsuLpZFC/XlV3yuVOAGdQK9vdapea3ZDQVlPdIfF8W22i20QkhG X+1fzFYESLvVqgytm4OK3r8VrxX9rpKxA8Fcp8VfJV+eAqBLNnLejWY6lF9TUqAlOum6OG wnyW9YyP2UeOI0wXnAysZ7U8hyuiyG21rVW4tWQIIwLMMOIOSEc07C/n2MHk/CqRcVX6Jl 2pWDk3z45EfR43N8FerMk7SLa1zYY9kAjMP9RazK1XUd1O7dw1ecYGrhYa41K6JAhSRBL5 WTfC0EbNmQ3LtAucN6zs2FqJdDJvDz0WRKuE7amJSKJ5yEXTcttzWFgJd3vIfQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1778168629; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sYDv2Kjb6ZzSh7a0vF2vmIuJFZvf3kVZ5O9qkmo+ZZ8=; b=4Q/atyUANbQvqd4vLpxvnCx6wIEfAT0sUQ+Wl1J1iIikU/ey06JTp7Xv4Jw4g//JvWQ88z AKwqEM4G9gleYhCg== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Willem de Bruijn Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn , Chintan Vankar , Danish Anwar , Daolin Qiu , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Felix Maurer , Jakub Kicinski , Neelima Muralidharan , Paolo Abeni , Praneeth Bajjuri , Pratheesh Gangadhar TK , Richard Cochran , Simon Horman , Vignesh Raghavendra Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v3] hsr: Allow to send a specific port and with HSR header Message-ID: <20260507154347.gC3JsJnO@linutronix.de> References: <20260429-hsr_ptp-v3-1-afbf8f200f48@linutronix.de> <20260504085911.nLZLRjPF@linutronix.de> <20260505095216.T02Z4R1T@linutronix.de> <20260506070928.hr8uavhJ@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On 2026-05-06 09:20:41 [-0400], Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > No, I parse the header. As far as I can tell this set based on the > > header bits from data passed to af_packet. Even if I could change this > > to something else, these 16bit should better not collide with anything > > else so I think used the eth-type and expecting nobody sending a PTP > > packet is good. > > Is that more fragile than a specific protocol? And introduces that > dependency on mirroring the Ethernet format. But your call. > > Ethernet does have requirements on MAC address format, so a layout > that corresponds to an invalid address could be a signal. perfect. Thank you. Sebastian