Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v2 0/1] Last (?) patch before version 4 release
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 11:07:10AM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > As for the 4.0 release, can you please have a look at this bug fix? > https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06420.html +1 ___ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v2 0/1] Last (?) patch before version 4 release
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:50:35AM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 09:57:52PM -0400, Vincent Cheng wrote: > > Compile issue after applying patch against master commit: > > > > commit 60d829b102be9b8b13357a0f7a93f3e02d44b4ce > > Author: Maciek Machnikowski > > Date: Tue Apr 11 15:16:47 2023 +0200 > > > > --- > > port.c: In function ‘port_tx_sync’: > > port.c:1778:35: error: ‘CTL_FOLLOW_UP’ undeclared (first use in this > > function) > > fup->header.control= CTL_FOLLOW_UP; > > That's odd. These lines should be removed by the patch. I see only one > line (a comment) containing "header.control": You are correct. User error. I foolishly cut and paste from Outlook email client to quickly make the patch. Closer inspection of Outlook rendering of email showed some issues with line endings which resulted in faulty patch file. Vincent ___ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v2 0/1] Last (?) patch before version 4 release
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 05:29:32PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote: > Based on Erez's review, I expanded Christopher's patch to remove the > control field codes completely. I've tested this with the following > hardware, and nothing broke: > > Intel I210 > Intel X550T > LabX Titanium 411 AVB switch > > Please give this a try with your favorite hardware time stamping > device. I'd like to know how many devices stop working when the > controlField is clear. I have only one NIC with a PTP RX filter easily accessible for testing and that is BCM5720. It seems to work fine with all three transports. >From experiments with RX filters I did some time ago to see what parts of messages the hardware looks at, I'm pretty sure Intel XL710, X540, 82576 work too. As for the 4.0 release, can you please have a look at this bug fix? https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06420.html Thanks, -- Miroslav Lichvar ___ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v2 0/1] Last (?) patch before version 4 release
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 09:57:52PM -0400, Vincent Cheng wrote: > Compile issue after applying patch against master commit: > > commit 60d829b102be9b8b13357a0f7a93f3e02d44b4ce > Author: Maciek Machnikowski > Date: Tue Apr 11 15:16:47 2023 +0200 > > --- > port.c: In function ‘port_tx_sync’: > port.c:1778:35: error: ‘CTL_FOLLOW_UP’ undeclared (first use in this function) > fup->header.control= CTL_FOLLOW_UP; That's odd. These lines should be removed by the patch. I see only one line (a comment) containing "header.control": $ git grep 'header.control' msg.c://m->header.control, -- Miroslav Lichvar ___ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
