From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@gmail.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@gmail.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>,
davem@davemloft.net, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bond: pass get_ts_info and SIOC[SG]HWTSTAMP ioctl to active device
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 10:55:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YamHCHzmmQFA6Wxb@Laptop-X1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211202065923.7fc5aa8f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:59:23AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:04:40 +0800 Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > > Yeah, there should be some form of well understood indication in the
> > > uAPI telling the user space daemon that the PHC may get swapped on the
> > > interface, and a reliable notification which indicates PHC change.
> > > There is a number of user space daemons out there, fixing linuxptp does
> > > not mean other user space won't be broken/surprised/angry.
> >
> > This is a RFE, I don't think this patch will affect the current user space as
> > the new topology is not supported before. i.e. no user space tool will configure
> > PTP based on bond or vlan over bond. And even the user space use other ways to
> > get bond's active interface, e.g. via netlink message. It still not affected
> > and could keep using the old way. So I think this patch should be safe.
> >
> > Did I miss any thing?
>
> User can point their PTP daemon at any interface. Since bond now
> supports the uAPI the user will be blissfully unaware that their
> configuration will break if failover happens.
>
> We can't expect every user and every PTP daemon to magically understand
> the implicit quirks of the drivers. Quirks which are not even
> documented.
Thanks for the explanation. I understand what you mean now.
>
> What I'm saying is that we should have a new bit in the uAPI that
> tells us that the user space can deal with unstable PHC idx and reject
> the request forwarding in bond if that bit is not set. We have a flags
> field in hwtstamp_config which should fit the bill. Make sense?
Yes, this makes sense for me. I check this and try post a patch next week.
Thanks
Hangbin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-03 2:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-30 7:09 [PATCH net-next] bond: pass get_ts_info and SIOC[SG]HWTSTAMP ioctl to active device Hangbin Liu
2021-11-30 12:30 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2021-11-30 15:19 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-12-01 4:57 ` Hangbin Liu
2021-12-01 15:11 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-12-02 3:04 ` Hangbin Liu
2021-12-02 14:59 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-12-03 2:55 ` Hangbin Liu [this message]
2021-12-03 2:58 ` Jakub Kicinski
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=YamHCHzmmQFA6Wxb@Laptop-X1 \
--to=liuhangbin@gmail.com \
--cc=andy@greyhouse.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=j.vosburgh@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=mlichvar@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
--cc=vfalico@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox