If you ask to stamp all packets with HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL, then you can not get
a reply of "plus some others".
You ask for all, which more do you think you can get?
It does make sense as a reply in case of HWTS_FILTER_FULL.
enum hwtstamp_rx_filters {
/* time stamp any incoming packet */
HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL,
As of HWTS_FILTER_NORMAL case, your patch make sense.
Thanks
Erez
________________________________________
From: Petr Machata [pe...@mellanox.com]
Sent: 11 June 2019 16:22
To: Geva, Erez (ext) (DI PA CI R&D 3)
Cc: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sk: Recognize HWTSTAMP_FILTER_SOME
Geva, Erez <erez.geva....@siemens.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> The "cfg.rx_filter != HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL)) { "
> line catch both filter mode is "HWTS_FILTER_FULL, and the fact that the
> filter could is in a higher state for both HWTS_FILTER_NORMAL,
> HWTS_FILTER_CHECK.
>
> Could you be more specific what does the HWTSTAMP_FILTER_SOME means?
>From net_tstamp.h:
/* possible values for hwtstamp_config->rx_filter */
enum hwtstamp_rx_filters {
...
/* return value: time stamp all packets requested plus some others */
HWTSTAMP_FILTER_SOME,
};
> For me, the HWTSTAMP_FILTER_SOME might be good when using filter mode
> "HWTS_FILTER_NORMAL".
>
> But when filter mode is "HWTS_FILTER_FULL" I would accept that the flag will
> be HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL only.
If you make ALL acceptable, why not SOME? Both mean that the driver will
timestamp everything requested and more.
> What would you accept on filter mode HWTS_FILTER_CHECK?
I agree that for HWTS_FILTER_CHECK, SOME is not acceptable, which is why
I respun v3 of my patch.
> Full state machine:
>
> HWTS_FILTER_CHECK
> get config
> check if RX filter one of Rx filter 1, Rx filter 2, HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL
> As HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL is a higher state
>
> HWTS_FILTER_NORMAL
> set Rx filter 1
> if fail set Rx filter 2
> check if RX filter one of Rx filter 1, Rx filter 2, HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL
> As HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL is a higher state
>
> HWTS_FILTER_FULL
> set Rx filter HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL
> check if RX filter one of Rx filter 1, Rx filter 2, HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL
> Filter should be HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL,
> but if NIc driver only set filter to be one of Rx filter 1, Rx filter 2
> then the PTP daemon may proceed normally.
>
> Erez
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Petr Machata [pe...@mellanox.com]
> Sent: 10 June 2019 15:56
> To: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v2] sk: Recognize HWTSTAMP_FILTER_SOME
>
> struct hwtstamp_config.rx_filter passed to SIOCSHWTSTAMP can be updated by
> the kernel with the value of HWTSTAMP_FILTER_SOME. That indicates that all
> requested packets will be timestamped, and some others as well.
>
> Update hwts_init() to recognize this as a valid response, instead of
> rejecting it as mismatch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Machata <pe...@mellanox.com>
> ---
>
> Notes:
> v2: Fix whitespace.
>
> sk.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/sk.c b/sk.c
> index 93ba77a..416d784 100644
> --- a/sk.c
> +++ b/sk.c
> @@ -105,7 +105,8 @@ static int hwts_init(int fd, const char *device, int
> rx_filter,
> if (cfg.tx_type != tx_type ||
> (cfg.rx_filter != rx_filter &&
> cfg.rx_filter != rx_filter2 &&
> - cfg.rx_filter != HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL)) {
> + cfg.rx_filter != HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL &&
> + cfg.rx_filter != HWTSTAMP_FILTER_SOME)) {
> pr_debug("tx_type %d not %d", cfg.tx_type, tx_type);
> pr_debug("rx_filter %d not %d or %d", cfg.rx_filter,
> rx_filter,
> rx_filter2);
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
