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, 5 Jun 2021 08:53:30 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To:     "huangguangbin (A)" <huangguangbin2@huawei.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, salil.mehta@huawei.com,
        lipeng321@huawei.com, tanhuazhong@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND net-next 1/2] net: hns3: add support for PTP
Message-ID: <20210605155330.GB10328@localhost>
References: <1622602664-20274-1-git-send-email-huangguangbin2@huawei.com>
 <1622602664-20274-2-git-send-email-huangguangbin2@huawei.com>
 <20210603132237.GC6216@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
 <a60de68c-ca2e-05e9-2770-a4d3ecb589ae@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a60de68c-ca2e-05e9-2770-a4d3ecb589ae@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 06:37:19PM +0800, huangguangbin (A) wrote:
> > Need mutex or spinlock to protest against concurrent access.
> > 
> Ok, thank you. Is it better to add mutex or spinlock in the public place, like ptp_clock_adjtime()?
> Then there's no need to add mutex or spinlock in all the drives.

No, that is a terrible idea.  The class layer has no idea about the
hardware implementation.  Only the driver knows that.

Thanks,
Richard