[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a360fadc-0cfc-4d4a-9028-f63e2105634d@lunn.ch>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:13:13 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@....com>
Cc: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 3/5] net: fec: add rx_frame_size to support
configurable RX length
> After further consideration, I think we can simply keep MAX_FL set to max_buf_size and
> only update TRUNC_FL as needed. This approach is also sufficient, so the logic introduced
> in patch v2 has been removed. Let me know if you want to add back the above logic.
For me, higher priority is you review all the commit messages and
comments. A lot of the discussion here has been because the comments
don't fit the code, and the commit messages don't give enough details
to explain the changes. They are just as important as the code.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists