[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99737F4847ED0A48AECC9F4A1974A4B80FD149F552@MNEXMB2.qlogic.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:05:03 -0500
From: Amit Salecha <amit.salecha@...gic.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ameen Rahman <ameen.rahman@...gic.com>,
Anirban Chakraborty <anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com>,
Sucheta Chakraborty <sucheta.chakraborty@...gic.com>
Subject: RE: [NEXT PATCH 2/3] qlcnic: support rcv ring configuration through
ethtool
> From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@...arflare.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 5:03 PM
> To: Amit Salecha
> Cc: David Miller; netdev; Ameen Rahman; Anirban Chakraborty; Sucheta
> Chakraborty
> Subject: Re: [NEXT PATCH 2/3] qlcnic: support rcv ring configuration
> through ethtool
>
> > + if (channel->other_count || channel->combined_count)
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> Should be -EINVAL.
>
> > + if (channel->tx_count &&
> > + (channel->tx_count != QLCNIC_MIN_NUM_TX_DESC_RINGS)) {
> > + netdev_info(dev, "valid value for tx_count 0x%x\n",
> > + QLCNIC_MIN_NUM_TX_DESC_RINGS);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> [...]
>
> If tx_count cannot be changed, why does qlcnic_get_channels() set
> tx_count and max_tx to different values?
>
Internally both are same values. But I will resubmit the patch to reduce this ambiguity.
> Also I don't think you should treat tx_count == 0 as a special case; it
> should be rejected as invalid.
>
Will fix this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists