The 09/08/2019 22:42, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 12:07:27PM +0100, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > I think Richard has been there when the taprio, etf qdiscs, SO_TXTIME > > were first defined and developed: > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/808504/ > > I expect he is capable of delivering a competent review of the entire > > series, possibly way more competent than my patch set itself. > > > > The reason why I'm not splitting it up is because I lose around 10 ns > > of synchronization offset when using the hardware-corrected PTPCLKVAL > > clock for timestamping rather than the PTPTSCLK free-running counter. > > Hi Vladimir > > I'm not suggesting anything is wrong with your concept, when i say > split it up. It is more than when somebody sees 15 patches, they > decide they don't have the time at the moment, and put it off until > later. And often later never happens. If however they see a smaller > number of patches, they think that yes they have time now, and do the > review. > > So if you are struggling to get something reviewed, make it more > appealing for the reviewer. Salami tactics. > > Andrew
I vote for splitting it up. I don't know enough about PTP and taprio/qdisc to review the entire series but the interface presented in patch 09/15 fits well with our future TSN switches. Joergen Andreasen, Microchip
