Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2019-04-17 Thread Neil Horman
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:21:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Neil Horman > Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 05:35:23 -0400 > > > Acked-by: Neil Horman > > Neil, please quote appropriately in the future. > > I have to scroll through all of those pages of quoted patch just to > see this one

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2019-04-17 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:46 PM Willem de Bruijn > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many > > > socket protocol handlers, and all of those

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2019-04-17 Thread David Miller
From: Neil Horman Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 05:35:23 -0400 > Acked-by: Neil Horman Neil, please quote appropriately in the future. I have to scroll through all of those pages of quoted patch just to see this one line. Thank you.

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2019-04-17 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:46 PM Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many > > socket protocol handlers, and all of those end up calling the same > >

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2019-04-17 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many > socket protocol handlers, and all of those end up calling the same > sock_get_timestamp()/sock_get_timestampns() helper functions, which > results in a lot of duplicate

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2019-04-17 Thread Neil Horman
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:32:48PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many > socket protocol handlers, and all of those end up calling the same > sock_get_timestamp()/sock_get_timestampns() helper functions, which > results in a lot of

[PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2019-04-16 Thread Arnd Bergmann
The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many socket protocol handlers, and all of those end up calling the same sock_get_timestamp()/sock_get_timestampns() helper functions, which results in a lot of duplicate code. With the introduction of 64-bit time_t on 32-bit

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2018-09-21 Thread Stefan Schmidt
Hello Arnd. On 8/29/18 2:59 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many > socket protocol handlers, and all of those end up calling the same > sock_get_timestamp()/sock_get_timestampns() helper functions, which > results in a lot of duplicate

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2018-09-13 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 3:03 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c > index 3730eb855095..df17bbfaca27 100644 > --- a/net/core/sock.c > +++ b/net/core/sock.c > @@ -2897,37 +2897,31 @@ bool lock_sock_fast(struct sock *sk) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(lock_sock_fast); >

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2018-08-31 Thread Willem de Bruijn
> > > Looking at it again, it seems that sock_gettstamp() should > > > actually deal with this gracefully: it will return a -EINVAL > > > error condition if the timestamp remains at the > > > SK_DEFAULT_STAMP initial value, which is probably > > > just as appropriate (or better) as the current

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2018-08-31 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 6:31 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:10 PM Willem de Bruijn > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:05 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > If this is the only valid implementation of

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2018-08-31 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 6:31 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:10 PM Willem de Bruijn > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:05 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many > > > socket protocol handlers, and all

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2018-08-31 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:10 PM Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:05 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many > > socket protocol handlers, and all of those end up calling the same > >

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2018-08-30 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:05 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many > socket protocol handlers, and all of those end up calling the same > sock_get_timestamp()/sock_get_timestampns() helper functions, which > results in a lot of duplicate

[PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rework SIOCGSTAMP ioctl handling

2018-08-29 Thread Arnd Bergmann
The SIOCGSTAMP/SIOCGSTAMPNS ioctl commands are implemented by many socket protocol handlers, and all of those end up calling the same sock_get_timestamp()/sock_get_timestampns() helper functions, which results in a lot of duplicate code. With the introduction of 64-bit time_t on 32-bit