On Thu, 14 Mar, 2024 12:06:47 -0700 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:43:07 -0700 Rahul Rameshbabu wrote: >> > I don't understand. >> > Are you sure you changef the kernel to use uint, rebuilt and >> > there is no ETHTOOL_A_TS_STAT_PAD anywhere, anymore? >> >> Sorry, I was not as clear as I could have been with my last reply. I did >> leave ETHTOOL_A_TS_STAT_PAD in when I tested (intentionally). I was >> trying to mimic other ethtool stats implementations, but you are saying >> that in general there is no need for this padding (which I agree with) >> and I can remove that unnecessary offset. It'll be different from the >> existing stats, but I am ok with that. > > Yes, the small divergence is fine - uint is pretty recent addition. Yes, the uint suggestion is great since we no longer need to depend on the padding. Thanks for the feedback. Accounted for in my patches. -- Thanks, Rahul Rameshbabu
