On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 5:15 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 03:45:14PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:30 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > [ Upstream commit fbfb2321e950918b430e7225546296b2dcadf725 ]
> > >
> > > Raw sockets support tx timestamping, but one case is missing.
> > >
> > > IPPROTO_RAW takes a separate packet construction path. raw_send_hdrinc
> > > has an explicit call to sock_tx_timestamp, but rawv6_send_hdrinc does
> > > not. Add it.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 11878b40ed5c ("net-timestamp: SOCK_RAW and PING timestamping")
> > > Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > For 4.14.y cherry-pick:
> >
> > Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Might be good to point out that this is not only a clean cherry-pick
> > of the one-line patch, but has to include part of commit a818f75e311c
> > ("net: ipv6: Hook into time based transmission") to plumb the
> > sockcm_cookie. The rest of that patch is not a candidate for stable,
> > so LGTM.
>
> Point out how?
In this case I did, so we're good. In general, perhaps it's fine to
add such comments below the original Signed-off-by/Acked-by/.. block?
Not sure what the common approach is, if any.
