[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170622153800.67f9635f@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:38:00 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
To: Gal Pressman <galp.dev@...il.com>
Cc: Gal Pressman <galp@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Vidya Sagar Ravipati <vidya@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
David Decotigny <decot@...glers.com>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 3/3] net/mlx5e: Expose link down reason to
ethtool
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 11:33:39 +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
> > Is my reading correct that in case the reason is not in the
> > pddr2ethtool_table opaque binary data will be passed from the firmware
> > to user space? Is there any particular reason to allow for this? If
> > it's just for the rare scenario where a new error code needs to be
> > added perhaps it would be enough to dump the FW-provided message to the
> > logs?
>
> No binary data is passed in this patch, the monitor_opcode is simply a vendor specific
> 16 bit id that is used when the reason is not generic enough to have it's own enum.
Sorry if I'm wrong, I thought this would potentially copy
ETH_GSTRING_LEN bytes to userspace:
+ if (status_message)
+ memcpy(status_message,
+ MLX5_ADDR_OF(pddr_reg, out, page_data.troubleshooting_info_page.status_message),
+ ETH_GSTRING_LEN);
I'm also still not sure why a reason would not be generic enough for
the enum, if it fits in the 16bit vendor enum...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists