[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150109030657.GA1791@vivalin-002>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 05:06:57 +0200
From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Olivier Sobrie <olivier@...rie.be>,
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Linux-CAN <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] can: kvaser_usb: Add support for the Usbcan-II
family
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 12:53:37PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 01/05/2015 07:31 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> >
[...]
> >
> > cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_CRTL;
> > cf->data[1] = CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_OVERFLOW;
> >
> > stats->rx_over_errors++;
> > stats->rx_errors++;
> >
> > netif_rx(skb);
> >
> > stats->rx_packets++;
> > stats->rx_bytes += cf->can_dlc;
>
> Another patch would be not to touch cf after netif_rx(), please move the stats handling before calling netif_rx(). Same applies to the kvaser_usb_rx_can_msg() function.
>
BTW, is it guaranteed from the SocketCAN stack that netif_rx()
will never return NET_RX_DROPPED? Because if no guarantee
exists, I guess below fragment cannot be completely correct?
stats->rx_packets++;
stats->rx_bytes += cf->can_dlc;
netif_rx(skb);
On the other hand, I don't see evan a single CAN driver checking
netif_rx() return value, so maybe such a check is an overkill...
Thanks,
Darwish
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists