[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250303095200.GB1065658@rocinante>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 18:52:00 +0900
From: Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kw@...ux.com>
To: Shradha Todi <shradha.t@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org,
lpieralisi@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
jingoohan1@...il.com, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
fan.ni@...sung.com, nifan.cxl@...il.com, a.manzanares@...sung.com,
pankaj.dubey@...sung.com, cassel@...nel.org, 18255117159@....com,
xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com, renyu.zj@...ux.alibaba.com,
will@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] Add debugfs based error injection support in DWC
Hello,
[...]
> + 29) Generates duplicate TLPs - duplicate_dllp
> + 30) Generates Nullified TLPs - nullified_tlp
Would the above field called "duplicate_dllp" for duplicate TLPs be
a potential typo? Perhaps this should be called "duplicate_tlp"?
I wanted to make sure we have the correct field name.
Thank you!
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists