On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 23:38, Erez <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 17:14, Miroslav Lichvar <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:55:14PM +0100, Erez Geva wrote: >> > Add reserved octet to the new port hardware clock structure. >> >> > @@ -354,6 +354,7 @@ struct port_hwclock_np { >> > struct PortIdentity portIdentity; >> > Integer32 phc_index; >> > UInteger8 flags; >> > + uint8_t reserved; >> > } PACKED; >> >> FWIW, there is a code in the {clock,port}_management_fill_response >> functions that pads the TLVs to 16 bits: >> >> if (datalen % 2) { >> >> tlv->data[datalen] = 0; >> >> datalen++; >> >> } >> >> >> > The reserved field was added in other cases. > Regardless of the padding. > > P.S. > I check pmc_tlv_datalen() > It lacks most of the new TLVs and it does not pad to 16 bits. > > > If we require the TLV declarations to be correctly padded, it might be >> a good idea to replace this code with an assertion or return error to >> catch bugs when new TLVs are introduced. >> > > Fine by me. > If Richard agrees, we can add a warning, a error or assertion. >
The padding is for variable length TLVs, like CLOCK_DESCRIPTION. Fixed size TLVs should be aligned. So we can not issue a warning or error there. We can issue a warning in pmc_tlv_datalen(). But as committers skip it not sure if it is helpful. Erez > Erez > > >> -- >> Miroslav Lichvar >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linuxptp-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel >> >
_______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
