Hi Jakub, On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:34 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 13 May 2024 22:12:04 -0400 Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: > > > > It might be safer to only suppress the sk_error_report in > > > > sock_queue_err_skb. Or at least in bt_sock_poll to check the type of > > > > all outstanding errors and only suppress if all are timestamps. > > > > > > Or perhaps we could actually do that via poll/epoll directly? Not that > > > it would make it much simpler since the library tends to wrap the > > > usage of poll/epoll but POLLERR meaning both errors or errqueue events > > > is sort of the problem we are trying to figure out how to process them > > > separately. > > > > @Jakub Kicinski I'm fine removing these from the pull request, or if > > you want to do it yourself, in order not to miss the merge window, > > then we can discuss it better and even put you and Willem on CC to > > review the upcoming changes. > > Sounds like the best way forward, thanks! > Could you drop them and resend the PR? > > It's going to take me until noon pacific to write up the PR text > for all of net-next, to give you a sense of when our PR will come > out. Perfect, will also make sure to include the btintel_pcie fix for the warning and drop the entire set implementing support SO_TIMESTAMPING. -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
