[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <deffba75-d9c0-b7a3-8c27-adcf50e1064c@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:27:02 +0200
From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
To: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Satish Baddipadige <satish.baddipadige@...adcom.com>,
Siva Reddy Kallam <siva.kallam@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tg3: Fix for disallow tx coalescing time to be 0
Dne 30.8.2016 v 17:46 Michael Chan napsal(a):
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com> wrote:
>> The recent commit 087d7a8c disallows to set Rx coalescing time to be 0
>> as this stops generating interrupts for the incoming packets. I found
>> the zero Tx coalescing time stops generating interrupts similarly for
>> outgoing packets and fires Tx watchdog later. To avoid this, don't allow
>> to set Tx coalescing time to 0.
>>
>> Cc: satish.baddipadige@...adcom.com
>> Cc: siva.kallam@...adcom.com
>> Cc: michael.chan@...adcom.com
>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c
>> index 6592612..07e3beb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c
>> @@ -14012,6 +14012,7 @@ static int tg3_set_coalesce(struct net_device *dev, struct ethtool_coalesce *ec)
>> if ((ec->rx_coalesce_usecs > MAX_RXCOL_TICKS) ||
>> (!ec->rx_coalesce_usecs) ||
>> (ec->tx_coalesce_usecs > MAX_TXCOL_TICKS) ||
>> + (!ec->tx_coalesce_usecs) ||
>> (ec->rx_max_coalesced_frames > MAX_RXMAX_FRAMES) ||
>> (ec->tx_max_coalesced_frames > MAX_TXMAX_FRAMES) ||
>> (ec->rx_coalesce_usecs_irq > max_rxcoal_tick_int) ||
>
>
> As Rick pointed out last time, we can remove this check which follows
> the block of code above:
>
> /* No tx interrupts will be generated if both are zero */
> if ((ec->tx_coalesce_usecs == 0) &&
> (ec->tx_max_coalesced_frames == 0))
> return -EINVAL;
>
Michael,
should I add the removal of these checks to v2?
Ivan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists