Re: [PATCH net-next] ptp: only allow phase values lower than 1 period

2020-08-04 Thread Vladimir Oltean
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 04:23:35PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 10:49:21PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > @@ -218,6 +218,19 @@ long ptp_ioctl(struct posix_clock *pc, unsigned int > > cmd, unsigned long arg) > > break; > >

Re: [PATCH net-next] ptp: only allow phase values lower than 1 period

2020-08-04 Thread Richard Cochran
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 10:49:21PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > @@ -218,6 +218,19 @@ long ptp_ioctl(struct posix_clock *pc, unsigned int cmd, > unsigned long arg) > break; > } > } > + i

Re: [PATCH net-next] ptp: only allow phase values lower than 1 period

2020-08-04 Thread David Miller
From: Vladimir Oltean Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 22:49:21 +0300 > The way we define the phase (the difference between the time of the > signal's rising edge, and the closest integer multiple of the period), > it doesn't make sense to have a phase value larger than 1 period. > > So deny these setting

Re: [PATCH net-next] ptp: only allow phase values lower than 1 period

2020-08-03 Thread David Miller
From: Vladimir Oltean Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 22:49:21 +0300 > The way we define the phase (the difference between the time of the > signal's rising edge, and the closest integer multiple of the period), > it doesn't make sense to have a phase value larger than 1 period. > > So deny these setting

[PATCH net-next] ptp: only allow phase values lower than 1 period

2020-08-03 Thread Vladimir Oltean
The way we define the phase (the difference between the time of the signal's rising edge, and the closest integer multiple of the period), it doesn't make sense to have a phase value larger than 1 period. So deny these settings coming from the user. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean --- drivers/pt