From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF3CC4743D for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 02:44:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E44F61209 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 02:44:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230213AbhFGCqY (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2021 22:46:24 -0400 Received: from szxga08-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.255]:4326 "EHLO szxga08-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230127AbhFGCqX (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2021 22:46:23 -0400 Received: from dggemv703-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.54]) by szxga08-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4FyyJG59W1z1BJkL; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:39:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggemi759-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.145) by dggemv703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:44:31 +0800 Received: from [10.67.102.67] (10.67.102.67) by dggemi759-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:44:30 +0800 Subject: Re: [RESEND net-next 1/2] net: hns3: add support for PTP To: Richard Cochran CC: , , , , , , References: <1622602664-20274-1-git-send-email-huangguangbin2@huawei.com> <1622602664-20274-2-git-send-email-huangguangbin2@huawei.com> <20210603132237.GC6216@hoboy.vegasvil.org> <20210605155330.GB10328@localhost> From: "huangguangbin (A)" Message-ID: <47805689-2c52-ea26-49a6-3fbe3aa22a88@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:44:30 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210605155330.GB10328@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.67.102.67] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To dggemi759-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.145) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2021/6/5 23:53, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 06:37:19PM +0800, huangguangbin (A) wrote: >>> Need mutex or spinlock to protest against concurrent access. >>> >> Ok, thank you. Is it better to add mutex or spinlock in the public place, like ptp_clock_adjtime()? >> Then there's no need to add mutex or spinlock in all the drives. > > No, that is a terrible idea. The class layer has no idea about the > hardware implementation. Only the driver knows that. > > Thanks, > Richard > . > Ok, thanks. We will add mutex or spinlock as your idea, and repost a new version after we test ok.