Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next 3/5] ice: introduce ICE_TX_TSTAMP_WORK enumeration

[Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>]

On 5/26/2023 3:21 PM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> - * Returns true if all timestamps were handled, and false if any slots remain
> - * without a timestamp.
> - *
> - * After looping, if we still have waiting SKBs, return false. This may cause
> - * us effectively poll even when not strictly necessary. We do this because
> - * it's possible a new timestamp was requested around the same time as the
> - * interrupt. In some cases hardware might not interrupt us again when the
> - * timestamp is captured.
> - *
>   * Note that we do not hold the tracking lock while reading the Tx timestamp.
>   * This is because reading the timestamp requires taking a mutex that might
>   * sleep.
> @@ -673,7 +664,7 @@ ice_ptp_is_tx_tracker_up(struct ice_ptp_tx *tx)
>   * the packet will never be sent by hardware and discard it without reading
>   * the timestamp register.
>   */
> -static bool ice_ptp_tx_tstamp(struct ice_ptp_tx *tx)
> +static void ice_ptp_process_tx_tstamp(struct ice_ptp_tx *tx)
>  {
>  	struct ice_ptp_port *ptp_port;
>  	bool more_timestamps;

This boolean is no longer used in this function. @Tony, could you amend
this to remove it when applying this? If not, let me know if I should
just send a v2.

Thanks,
Jake
_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan