On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:02 AM Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:57:57PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > It is debatable whether this is a fix or a new feature. It extends > > SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID to hardware timestamps. I don't think this > > would be a stable candidate. > > Was the original series advertised as SW timestamping only?
I did not intend to cover hardware timestamps at the time. > If so, I missed that at the time. After seeing it not work, I meant > to fix it, but never got around to it. So to me this is a known > issue. Understood. I certainly understand that view. I never use hw timestamps, so it is a bit of a blind spot for me. If this is a safe and predictable change, I don't care strongly about net vs net-next. I don't think it meets the bar for stable, but that is not my call. > > More importantly, note that __ip6_append_data has similar logic. For > > consistency the two should be updated at the same time. > > +1 > > Thanks, > Richard
