Re: [PATCH net 1/2] sfc: ptp: serialize host and MC synchronization transactions

[Austin, Alex (DCCG)]

On 10/10/2026 20:10, netdev-bot+sashiko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from netdev-bot+sashiko@xxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>
>
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 5 potential
> issue(s) to consider.
>
> Critical: 0 · High: 0 · Medium: 3 (1) · Low: 2
>
> If you believe none of the issues are legitimate, please reply to each
> issue of Medium severity or higher and explain why the AI is wrong.
> If any of them are legitimate and you plan to respin, please let patchwork
> know by including "pw-bot: cr" as a separate line at the end of your reply
> (one such reply per series is enough).
>
> - [Medium] At this commit, ptp->host_time_pps is written by
>   efx_ptp_process_times() while phc_lock is held.
> - [Medium] phc_lock is created separately in each PCI function's
>   efx_ptp_data: efx_ptp_probe() calls mutex_init(&ptp->phc_lock) for…
> - [Medium] sfc: data race on current_adjfreq in efx_ptp_start
> - [Low] The patch changes how efx_ptp_synchronize()
>   (drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ptp.c) handles a failed…
> - [Low] The commit message says clock adjustments are serialized with
>   phc_lock "so they cannot change the PHC during a capture".
>
> Pre-existing issues:
> - [Medium] efx_ptp_start() resets ptp->current_adjfreq = 0 (line 1457)
>   without phc_lock.


More care needs to be taken when efx_ptp_synchronize() is called by secondary function(s) - will respin.

pw-bot: cr