Re: [PATCH net-next] gve: Correctly report software timestamping capabilities

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 21:40:46 -0700 Rahul Rameshbabu wrote:
> > My gut tells me we force drivers to set the ethtool op because
> > while at it they will probably also implement tx stamping.  
> 
> I think the logic should be the other way (in terms of the
> relationship). A call to skb_tx_timestamp should throw a warning if the
> driver does not advertise its timestamping capabilities. This way, a
> naive netdev driver for some lightweight device does not need to worry
> about this. I agree that anyone implementing tx timestamping should have
> this operation defined. An skb does not contain any mechanism to
> reference the driver's ethtool callback. Maybe the right choice is to
> have a ts capability function registered for each netdev that can be
> used by the core stack and that powers the ethtool operation as well
> instead of the existing callback for ethtool?

Adding a check which only need to runs once in the lifetime of
the driver to the fastpath may be a little awkward. Another option
would be a sufficiently intelligent grep, which would understand
which files constitute a driver. At which point grepping for 
the ethtool op and skb_tx_timestamp would be trivial?