[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160107215011.607779cc@jkicinski-Precision-T1700>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 21:50:11 +0000
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
rolf.neugebauer@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 0/4] MTU changes and other fixes
On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 16:33:14 -0500 (EST), David Miller wrote:
> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 20:49:28 +0000
>
> > I know this is not what you asked for but, since we are using FW
> > commands to disable/enable RX, even if we allocate all required
> > resources before freeing old ones we still cannot guarantee that
> > the reenabling operation will not fail. Should we refuse to do
> > MTU changes while the interface is running altogether?
>
> If you issue the MTU change command and it fails, then you're still
> configured at the old MTU. There should therefore be no problem
> rewinding in that case.
No, no... The FW command is to stop and start the RX path in
the NIC. Our NIC is NPU-based, it has a ton of programmability
so even though we try to make it work like a run-of-the-mill
NIC there are some gotchas.
Unless there is a way to change MTU without stopping RX which
escapes me.
> > All drivers I've seen ...
>
> Bad practice in other drivers should be ignored, not copied.
I'll take that to heart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists