Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 0/5] General improvements for linuxptp focused around phase adjustment
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:09:50AM -0700, Rahul Rameshbabu via Linuxptp-devel wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun, 2023 12:11:05 +0200 Erez wrote: > > Just add a version tag, please. Whether you add an RFC or not. > > If you really must , you can add a note in the cover letter for Richard. > > Noted for future submissions. Thanks for the clarification. If you started with "RFC", then the next post can be "v1". In any case, put something in the Subject: that helps us keep track of your work. Thanks, Richard ___ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 0/5] General improvements for linuxptp focused around phase adjustment
On Thu, 22 Jun, 2023 12:11:05 +0200 Erez wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 01:13, Rahul Rameshbabu wrote: > > Hi Erez, > > On Wed, 21 Jun, 2023 00:33:28 +0200 Erez wrote: > > Hi, > > > > You already submitted the patch seria. > > Has it changed? > > Yes, I took feedback from the RFC (request for comments) I sent out and > applied it in this submission. In the git notes field in the first patch > of the series, I document the change made since the RFC. Since the first > submission was an RFC, I did not treat it as a formal submission, so I > did not consider it a v1 but rather a draft. I submitted as an RFC due > to pending kernel side changes. > > > If so, please mark it with version 2. "git format-patch -v 2". > > I agree with this if a formal v1 was submitted. However since my > previous submission was an RFC, is the practice still to increment the > official submission as v2? > > Rahul, all patches are for review. > Do not make our life too much sophisticated. Ack. > Just add a version tag, please. Whether you add an RFC or not. > If you really must , you can add a note in the cover letter for Richard. Noted for future submissions. Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, Rahul ___ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 0/5] General improvements for linuxptp focused around phase adjustment
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 01:13, Rahul Rameshbabu wrote: > Hi Erez, > > On Wed, 21 Jun, 2023 00:33:28 +0200 Erez wrote: > > Hi, > > > > You already submitted the patch seria. > > Has it changed? > > Yes, I took feedback from the RFC (request for comments) I sent out and > applied it in this submission. In the git notes field in the first patch > of the series, I document the change made since the RFC. Since the first > submission was an RFC, I did not treat it as a formal submission, so I > did not consider it a v1 but rather a draft. I submitted as an RFC due > to pending kernel side changes. > > > If so, please mark it with version 2. "git format-patch -v 2". > > I agree with this if a formal v1 was submitted. However since my > previous submission was an RFC, is the practice still to increment the > official submission as v2? > Rahul, all patches are for review. Do not make our life too much sophisticated. Just add a version tag, please. Whether you add an RFC or not. If you really must , you can add a note in the cover letter for Richard. Linux works with several groups. Linuxptp has only one developer group, it is not that big :-) Thanks Erez > > > If not, why do you send it again? > > Ignoring the fact that I applied changes based on feedback from the RFC > submission, isn't the normal practice to submit an RFC as a normal > submission to the mailing list to indicate readiness for applying the > patches onto the target? > > > I think Richard wanted to close version 4 first. > > Sure, that makes sense. I am hoping RFC patches are not considered for > merging into releases or the default branch of the project. At the time, > the needed kernel side changes were not merged into net-next of the > linux netdev tree. > > Apologize in advance if we are implementing the practice of closing > submissions during release windows (similar to what net-next does in the > linux netdev tree). I did not see a mention of that on the mailing list. > Might have missed it. > > Thanks, > > Rahul Rameshbabu > > > > > Erez > > > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 19:39, Rahul Rameshbabu via Linuxptp-devel < > linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > > > The main focus of this submission is adding support for testing > ADJ_OFFSET with > > phc_ctl and querying the maximum supported ADJ_OFFSET adjustment that a > device > > is capable of. Some other minor cleanups are also included in the > submission. > > > > That patch the introduces support for querying the maximum offset > supported by > > ADJ_OFFSET depends on a kernel patch series (linked below) that is > targeted for > > kernel 6.5. Previously, sent this series out as an RFC to inquire > feedback early > > on. Have incorporated that feedback into this submission. > > > > Link: https://sourceforge.net/p/linuxptp/mailman/message/37854603/ > > Link: > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230612211500.309075-1-rrameshb...@nvidia.com/ > > > > Rahul Rameshbabu (5): > >Rename NSEC2SEC as NSEC_PER_SEC and refactor to util.h > >phc_ctl: Add phase command to support ADJ_OFFSET > >phc_ctl: Add maximum offset capability > >phc_ctl: Use pr_notice instead of pr_err for displaying adjusted > > frequency > >phc_ctl: Handle errors returned by various clockadj helpers > > > > missing.h | 9 +++--- > > phc_ctl.8 | 4 +++ > > phc_ctl.c | 77 ++ > > port.c | 14 - > > port_private.h | 3 +- > > servo.c| 3 +- > > tc.c | 6 ++-- > > util.h | 2 ++ > > 8 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.40.1 > > > > ___ > > Linuxptp-devel mailing list > > Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel > ___ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 0/5] General improvements for linuxptp focused around phase adjustment
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 04:13:18PM -0700, Rahul Rameshbabu via Linuxptp-devel wrote: > > I think Richard wanted to close version 4 first. > > Sure, that makes sense. I am hoping RFC patches are not considered for > merging into releases or the default branch of the project. At the time, > the needed kernel side changes were not merged into net-next of the > linux netdev tree. Version 4 is released, and so I'll merging new stuff. Thanks, Richard ___ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 0/5] General improvements for linuxptp focused around phase adjustment
Hi Erez, On Wed, 21 Jun, 2023 00:33:28 +0200 Erez wrote: > Hi, > > You already submitted the patch seria. > Has it changed? Yes, I took feedback from the RFC (request for comments) I sent out and applied it in this submission. In the git notes field in the first patch of the series, I document the change made since the RFC. Since the first submission was an RFC, I did not treat it as a formal submission, so I did not consider it a v1 but rather a draft. I submitted as an RFC due to pending kernel side changes. > If so, please mark it with version 2. "git format-patch -v 2". I agree with this if a formal v1 was submitted. However since my previous submission was an RFC, is the practice still to increment the official submission as v2? > If not, why do you send it again? Ignoring the fact that I applied changes based on feedback from the RFC submission, isn't the normal practice to submit an RFC as a normal submission to the mailing list to indicate readiness for applying the patches onto the target? > I think Richard wanted to close version 4 first. Sure, that makes sense. I am hoping RFC patches are not considered for merging into releases or the default branch of the project. At the time, the needed kernel side changes were not merged into net-next of the linux netdev tree. Apologize in advance if we are implementing the practice of closing submissions during release windows (similar to what net-next does in the linux netdev tree). I did not see a mention of that on the mailing list. Might have missed it. Thanks, Rahul Rameshbabu > > Erez > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 19:39, Rahul Rameshbabu via Linuxptp-devel > wrote: > > The main focus of this submission is adding support for testing ADJ_OFFSET > with > phc_ctl and querying the maximum supported ADJ_OFFSET adjustment that a > device > is capable of. Some other minor cleanups are also included in the submission. > > That patch the introduces support for querying the maximum offset supported > by > ADJ_OFFSET depends on a kernel patch series (linked below) that is targeted > for > kernel 6.5. Previously, sent this series out as an RFC to inquire feedback > early > on. Have incorporated that feedback into this submission. > > Link: https://sourceforge.net/p/linuxptp/mailman/message/37854603/ > Link: > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230612211500.309075-1-rrameshb...@nvidia.com/ > > Rahul Rameshbabu (5): >Rename NSEC2SEC as NSEC_PER_SEC and refactor to util.h >phc_ctl: Add phase command to support ADJ_OFFSET >phc_ctl: Add maximum offset capability >phc_ctl: Use pr_notice instead of pr_err for displaying adjusted > frequency >phc_ctl: Handle errors returned by various clockadj helpers > > missing.h | 9 +++--- > phc_ctl.8 | 4 +++ > phc_ctl.c | 77 ++ > port.c | 14 - > port_private.h | 3 +- > servo.c| 3 +- > tc.c | 6 ++-- > util.h | 2 ++ > 8 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.40.1 > > ___ > Linuxptp-devel mailing list > Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel ___ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 0/5] General improvements for linuxptp focused around phase adjustment
Hi, You already submitted the patch seria. Has it changed? If so, please mark it with version 2. "git format-patch -v 2". If not, why do you send it again? I think Richard wanted to close version 4 first. Erez On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 19:39, Rahul Rameshbabu via Linuxptp-devel < linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > The main focus of this submission is adding support for testing ADJ_OFFSET > with > phc_ctl and querying the maximum supported ADJ_OFFSET adjustment that a > device > is capable of. Some other minor cleanups are also included in the > submission. > > That patch the introduces support for querying the maximum offset > supported by > ADJ_OFFSET depends on a kernel patch series (linked below) that is > targeted for > kernel 6.5. Previously, sent this series out as an RFC to inquire feedback > early > on. Have incorporated that feedback into this submission. > > Link: https://sourceforge.net/p/linuxptp/mailman/message/37854603/ > Link: > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230612211500.309075-1-rrameshb...@nvidia.com/ > > Rahul Rameshbabu (5): > Rename NSEC2SEC as NSEC_PER_SEC and refactor to util.h > phc_ctl: Add phase command to support ADJ_OFFSET > phc_ctl: Add maximum offset capability > phc_ctl: Use pr_notice instead of pr_err for displaying adjusted > frequency > phc_ctl: Handle errors returned by various clockadj helpers > > missing.h | 9 +++--- > phc_ctl.8 | 4 +++ > phc_ctl.c | 77 ++ > port.c | 14 - > port_private.h | 3 +- > servo.c| 3 +- > tc.c | 6 ++-- > util.h | 2 ++ > 8 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.40.1 > > > > ___ > Linuxptp-devel mailing list > Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel > ___ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
[Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 0/5] General improvements for linuxptp focused around phase adjustment
The main focus of this submission is adding support for testing ADJ_OFFSET with phc_ctl and querying the maximum supported ADJ_OFFSET adjustment that a device is capable of. Some other minor cleanups are also included in the submission. That patch the introduces support for querying the maximum offset supported by ADJ_OFFSET depends on a kernel patch series (linked below) that is targeted for kernel 6.5. Previously, sent this series out as an RFC to inquire feedback early on. Have incorporated that feedback into this submission. Link: https://sourceforge.net/p/linuxptp/mailman/message/37854603/ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230612211500.309075-1-rrameshb...@nvidia.com/ Rahul Rameshbabu (5): Rename NSEC2SEC as NSEC_PER_SEC and refactor to util.h phc_ctl: Add phase command to support ADJ_OFFSET phc_ctl: Add maximum offset capability phc_ctl: Use pr_notice instead of pr_err for displaying adjusted frequency phc_ctl: Handle errors returned by various clockadj helpers missing.h | 9 +++--- phc_ctl.8 | 4 +++ phc_ctl.c | 77 ++ port.c | 14 - port_private.h | 3 +- servo.c| 3 +- tc.c | 6 ++-- util.h | 2 ++ 8 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) -- 2.40.1 ___ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
