Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 23 May 2020 18:42:20 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To:     Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu@arm.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, yangbo.lu@nxp.com, john.stultz@linaro.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, maz@kernel.org,
        Mark.Rutland@arm.com, will@kernel.org, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
        steven.price@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Steve.Capper@arm.com, Kaly.Xin@arm.com,
        justin.he@arm.com, Wei.Chen@arm.com, nd@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 09/11] ptp: extend input argument for
 getcrosstimestamp API
Message-ID: <20200524014220.GA335@localhost>
References: <20200522083724.38182-1-jianyong.wu@arm.com>
 <20200522083724.38182-10-jianyong.wu@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200522083724.38182-10-jianyong.wu@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 04:37:22PM +0800, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> sometimes we may need tell getcrosstimestamp call back how to perform
> itself. Extending input arguments for getcrosstimestamp API to offer more
> exquisite control for the operation.

This text does not offer any justification for the change in API.
 
> diff --git a/include/linux/ptp_clock_kernel.h b/include/linux/ptp_clock_kernel.h
> index c602670bbffb..ba765647e54b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ptp_clock_kernel.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ptp_clock_kernel.h
> @@ -133,7 +133,8 @@ struct ptp_clock_info {
>  	int (*gettimex64)(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, struct timespec64 *ts,
>  			  struct ptp_system_timestamp *sts);
>  	int (*getcrosststamp)(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp,
> -			      struct system_device_crosststamp *cts);
> +			      struct system_device_crosststamp *cts,
> +			      long *flag);

Well, you ignored the kernel doc completely.  But in any case, I must
NAK this completely opaque and mysterious change.  You want to add a
random pointer to some flag?  I don't think so.

Thanks,
Richard