Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-141542-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240408180918.2773238-1-jfraker@google.com> <20240409172602.3284f1c6@kernel.org>
 <66175758bab7c_2dcc3c294a@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <66175758bab7c_2dcc3c294a@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
From: John Fraker <jfraker@google.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:37:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGH0z2Hn-D1_wEZEN-Y9+hO1c+Ddn3dsO5_XCG6qQ8KioeGeGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] gve: Correctly report software timestamping capabilities
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org, 
	Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@google.com>, Harshitha Ramamurthy <hramamurthy@google.com>, 
	Shailend Chand <shailend@google.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@intel.com>, 
	Ziwei Xiao <ziweixiao@google.com>, Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 8:22=E2=80=AFPM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon,  8 Apr 2024 11:09:01 -0700 John Fraker wrote:
> > > gve has supported software timestamp generation since its inception,
> > > but has not advertised that support via ethtool. This patch correctly
> > > advertises that support.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@google.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Harshitha Ramamurthy <hramamurthy@google.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: John Fraker <jfraker@google.com>
> >
> > I think it should be a single line diff:
> >
> > +     .get_ts_info =3D ethtool_op_get_ts_info,
> >
> > right?
>
> If inserted above .get_link_ksettings that works. The current
> ordering is not based on actual struct layout anyway.
>
> Probably all statements should just end in a comma, including a
> trailing comma. To avoid these two line changes on each subsequent
> change.

Thanks all!

I'll send the one-line v2.

> The rest of the discussion in this thread is actually quite
> unrelated to this patch. Didn't meant to sidetrack that.