Hi Richard, > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 2:16 PM > To: Jianyong Wu <jianyong...@arm.com> > Cc: m...@kernel.org; net...@vger.kernel.org; yangbo...@nxp.com; > john.stu...@linaro.org; t...@linutronix.de; pbonz...@redhat.com; > sean.j.christopher...@intel.com; Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com>; > w...@kernel.org; Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>; Steven Price > <steven.pr...@arm.com>; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- > ker...@lists.infradead.org; kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu; > k...@vger.kernel.org; Steve Capper <steve.cap...@arm.com>; Kaly Xin > <kaly....@arm.com>; Justin He <justin...@arm.com>; Wei Chen > <wei.c...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 10/11] arm64: add mechanism to let user choose > which counter to return > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 04:50:28AM +0000, Jianyong Wu wrote: > > How about adding an extra argument in struct ptp_clock_info to serve as a > flag, then we can control this flag using IOCTL to determine the counter type. > > no, No, NO! > Ok,
> > > From your description, this "flag" really should be a module parameter. > > Maybe use flag as a module parameter is a better way. > > Yes. > It's fine for me, if @m...@kernel.org is not against with it. Thanks Jianyong > Thanks, > Richard _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
