Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-119684-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
To: "Song, Yoong Siang" <yoong.siang.song@intel.com>, "Brandeburg, Jesse"
 <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>, "Nguyen, Anthony L"
 <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
 Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
 Alexei
 Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
 Jesper
 Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>, John Fastabend
 <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, "Bezdeka,
 Florian" <florian.bezdeka@siemens.com>, Kurt Kanzenbach
 <kurt@linutronix.de>, "Fijalkowski, Maciej" <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
Cc: "intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
 "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 "bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, "xdp-hints@xdp-project.net"
 <xdp-hints@xdp-project.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH iwl-next,v4 1/1] igc: Add Tx hardware timestamp request
 for AF_XDP zero-copy packet
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR11MB58308AF32C9678FA550F38BCD8352@PH0PR11MB5830.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20240325020928.1987947-1-yoong.siang.song@intel.com>
 <87h6gtpvyn.fsf@intel.com>
 <PH0PR11MB58308AF32C9678FA550F38BCD8352@PH0PR11MB5830.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:30:27 -0700
Message-ID: <871q7wq20s.fsf@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

"Song, Yoong Siang" <yoong.siang.song@intel.com> writes:

>>
>>More a question: you are potentially triggering an interrupt from
>>igc_ptp_clear_tx_tstamp() (igc_xsk_wakeup()) which can be called from
>>igc_down(). So, how does it work when there's a pending timestamp and
>>you remove the igc module? (example of a situation that it might be
>>problematic).
>
> Hi Vinicius,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>
> There is test_bit(__IGC_DOWN, &adapter->state) checking in
> igc_sxk_wakeup(). Since igc_down() will set __IGC_DOWN before
> call into igc_ptp_suspend(), so I believe the checking in igc_sxk_wakeup()
> should be enough to prevent the situation that you mentioned.
>

Oh, I missed that one, sorry. Then:

Acked-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>


Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius