[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180329134259.3fe6165b@windsurf>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:42:59 +0200
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
To: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: mvneta: split rxq/txq init into SW and HW
parts
Hello,
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 18:13:56 +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> This is to prepare the suspend/resume improvement in next patch. The
> SW parts can be optimized out during resume.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>
Thanks, I have two very minor nits below, but otherwise:
Acked-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
> +/* Create a specified RX queue */
> +static int mvneta_rxq_init(struct mvneta_port *pp,
> + struct mvneta_rx_queue *rxq)
> +
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = mvneta_rxq_sw_init(pp, rxq);
> + if (ret)
Here you're testing if (ret), while in mvneta_txq_init(), in the same
situation, you're doing if (ret < 0). I don't have a preference for one
or the other, but having them consistent between the two lpaces would
be nice.
> -/* Create and initialize a tx queue */
> -static int mvneta_txq_init(struct mvneta_port *pp,
> - struct mvneta_tx_queue *txq)
> +static int mvneta_txq_sw_init(struct mvneta_port *pp,
> + struct mvneta_tx_queue *txq)
> {
> int cpu;
>
> @@ -2872,7 +2889,6 @@ static int mvneta_txq_init(struct mvneta_port *pp,
> txq->tx_stop_threshold = txq->size - MVNETA_MAX_SKB_DESCS;
> txq->tx_wake_threshold = txq->tx_stop_threshold / 2;
>
> -
Spurious change.
Thanks!
Thomas Petazzoni
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists