[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACKFLikfTZYpmULGD5FvzixFRiCjqvQZxUKKquaaQ5qe9-PxuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 01:57:55 -0700
From: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
To: "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>
Cc: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 05/10] bnxt_en: Fix ethtool -l|-L inconsistent
channel counts.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Mintz, Yuval <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com> wrote:
>> The existing code is inconsistent in reporting and accepting the combined
>> channel count. bnxt_get_channels() reports maximum combined as the
>> maximum rx count. bnxt_set_channels() accepts combined count that cannot be
>> bigger than max rx or max tx.
>>
>> For example, if max rx = 2 and max tx = 1, we report max supported combined to
>> be 2. But if the user tries to set combined to 2, it will fail because 2 is bigger
>> than max tx which is 1.
>>
>> Fix the code to be consistent. Max allowed combined = max(max_rx, max_tx).
>> We will accept a combined channel count <= max(max_rx, max_tx).
>
> Don't you mean the 'max allowed combined = min(max_rx, max_tx)'.
> How does using 'max' change the faulty scenario you've described?
I'm fixing the inconsistency described in the first 2 paragraphs. The
driver logic allows a combined ring to be rx or tx only. In the above
example, we allow combined to be set to 2. The 2nd combined ring
supports rx only.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists