On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:27:37 -0800 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 14:39:57 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote: > > In prevision to add new UAPI for hwtstamp we will be limited to the struct > > ethtool_ts_info that is currently passed in fixed binary format through the > > ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO ethtool ioctl. It would be good if new kernel code > > already started operating on an extensible kernel variant of that > > structure, similar in concept to struct kernel_hwtstamp_config vs struct > > hwtstamp_config. > > > > Since struct ethtool_ts_info is in include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h, here > > we introduce the kernel-only structure in include/linux/ethtool.h. > > The manual copy is then made in the function called by ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO. > > > > This one doesn't apply. > It's going to be a pain to keep rebasing it, since its a nop AFAICT - > do you want to post it separately to get it merged quickly? Weird, it does on my side on net-next. It would be great to have a review on the core of the new implementation beforehand. I don't want this patch to be merged but not used at all if the implementation does not fit what is expected. What do you think? Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
