linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/12] Add support for OPEN Alliance 10BASE-T1x MACPHY Serial Interface

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 22:39:22 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, saeedm@...dia.com,
	anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com,
	ruanjinjie@...wei.com, Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com,
	vladimir.oltean@....com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
	Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com, Pier.Beruto@...emi.com,
	Selvamani.Rajagopal@...emi.com, Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com,
	benjamin.bigler@...nformulastudent.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/12] Add support for OPEN Alliance
 10BASE-T1x MACPHY Serial Interface

On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 01:04:52PM +0000, Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 08/05/24 10:34 pm, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> >> Yes. I tried this test. It works as expected.
> > 
> >>     Each LAN8651 received approximately 3Mbps with lot of "Receive buffer
> >> overflow error". I think it is expected as the single SPI master has to
> >> serve both LAN8651 at the same time and both LAN8651 will be receiving
> >> 10Mbps on each.
> > 
> > Thanks for testing this.
> > 
> > This also shows the "Receive buffer overflow error" needs to go away.
> > Either we don't care at all, and should not enable the interrupt, or
> > we do care and should increment a counter.
> Thanks for your comments. I think, I would go for your 2nd proposal 
> because having "Receive buffer overflow error" enabled will indicate the 
> cause of the poor performance.
> 
> Already we have,
> tc6->netdev->stats.rx_dropped++;
> to increment the rx dropped counter in case of receive buffer overflow.
> 
> May be we can remove the print,
> net_err_ratelimited("%s: Receive buffer overflow error\n", 
> tc6->netdev->name);
> as it might lead to additional poor performance by adding some delay.
> 
> Could you please provide your opinion on this?

This is your code. Ideally you should decide. I will only add review
comments if i think it is wrong. Any can decide between any correct
option.

	Andrew