Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-18985-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2024 13:13:42 -0800
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To: Mahesh Bandewar =?utf-8?B?KOCkruCkueClh+CktiDgpKzgpILgpKHgpYfgpLXgpL4=?=
	=?utf-8?B?4KSwKQ==?= <maheshb@google.com>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Linux <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
	Don Hatchett <hatch@google.com>, Yuliang Li <yuliangli@google.com>,
	Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@bandewar.net>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 net-next 2/3] ptp: add ioctl interface for
 ptp_gettimex64any()
Message-ID: <ZZsUBqTBPULcSflB@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
References: <20240104212439.3276458-1-maheshb@google.com>
 <ZZczNlXzM8lrZgH5@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
 <CAF2d9jga9oc4OST6PMU=C9rz_NDrURCcLGx-1tP31U00z63vbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZZjdUlaYyHZSiwSM@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
 <CAF2d9jhnsubL-sw792ZviSXrFB826G-U8OktdEMN1NCe5zuj0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAF2d9jhnsubL-sw792ZviSXrFB826G-U8OktdEMN1NCe5zuj0Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 12:08:57AM -0800, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote:
> I disagree! NICs inherently benefit from bundled PTP devices due to
> their superior low-latency, low-overhead, and precise TX/RX
> timestamping capabilities. For demanding systems requiring increased
> capacity, multiple NICs from various vendors are often deployed.
> However, disciplining these diverse PTP devices across the host
> demands a flexible approach; a general purpose syscall is not an
> answer. The current PHC implementation using ioctls through exported
> ptp devices (/dev/ptpX) provides a solid foundation that is per device
> (/per NIC).
> 
> This series is providing another piece in an existing suite of methods
> used for disciplining / precision tuning (along with adjfine, adjtime,
> gettime etc.) This addition is to take that precision even further.

This reads like marketing fluff.

You fail to provide any *technical* reason why your proposed cross
time stamp method can only work with a new ioctl, and not as the back
end of a system call.

Thanks,
Richard