Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] MAINTAINERS: update PTP maintainer entries after directory split

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2026-06-02 at 19:03 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 09:04:27 +0100 David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Even though the "PTP" naming was an unfortunate choice way back when,
> > > still I'm not a big fan of moving stuff around "just because".
> > > 
> > > But moving forward, I would suggest starting a new area for pure
> > > hardware clock devices.    
> > 
> > I think that ties relatively well to Jakub's "does it purport to know
> > real time better than the host" criterion?
> > 
> > Although... ENA *both* purports to know real time better than the host
> > *and* does packet timestamping, and it looks like GVE is attempting to
> > do the same?
> 
> FWIW the ENA driver as it exists upstream does not currently support
> packet timestamping. Or at least the usual terms for which I'm grepping
> do not hit anything in this driver. Only skb_tx_timestamp() which is SW
> timestamping
> 
> Given various Google projects related to use of time / latency for
> networking I think you're right that GVE is likely the first driver
> that will straddle the boundary. For those drivers which are both NIC
> and virt we can stick to net-next, just always wait for your review?

No need to block on me unless you want to. I'll just take the things
off your hands that you actively don't want.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature