Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 18 Aug 2019 13:11:50 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>,
        Christopher S Hall <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PTP: introduce new versions of IOCTLs
Message-ID: <20190818201150.GA1316@localhost>
References: <20190814074712.10684-1-felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>
 <20190817155927.GA1540@localhost>
 <a146c1356b4272c481e5cc63666c6e58b8442407.camel@perches.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a146c1356b4272c481e5cc63666c6e58b8442407.camel@perches.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:17:20AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Is there a case where this initialization is
> unnecessary such that it impacts performance
> given the use in ptp_ioctl?

None of these ioctls are sensitive WRT performance.  They are all
setup or configuration, or in the case of the OFFSET ioctls, the tiny
extra delay before the actual measurement will not affect the result.

Thanks,
Richard