[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7922f774-3717-0768-ecc6-f58e84120b4d@synopsys.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 07:37:29 +0000
From: Jose Abreu <jose.abreu@...opsys.com>
To: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>,
Jose Abreu <jose.abreu@...opsys.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Joao Pinto <joao.pinto@...opsys.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
<vinod.koul@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/3] net: stmmac: Misc fixes
Hi Niklas,
On 2/5/2019 10:05 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 03:54:18PM +0100, Jose Abreu wrote:
>>
>> Some misc fixes for stmmac targeting -net.
>>
>> Cc: Joao Pinto <jpinto@...opsys.com>
>> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>> Cc: Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>
>> Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
>>
>> Jose Abreu (3):
>> net: stmmac: Fallback to Platform Data clock in Watchdog conversion
>> net: stmmac: Send TSO packets always from Queue 0
>> net: stmmac: Disable EEE mode earlier in XMIT callback
>
> Hello Jose,
>
> Thanks for your great work of improving the stmmac driver.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm seeing that a lot of important stmmac fixes
> aren't getting backported to stable kernels.
>
>
> I think that the problem is that a lot of stmmac commit messages do
> not clearly indicate what happens if these patches are not included.
>
> See netdev FAQ:
>
> Q: I have created a network patch and I think it should be backported to
> stable. Should I add a "Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org" like the references
> in the kernel's Documentation/ directory say?
>
> A: No. See above answer. In short, if you think it really belongs in
> stable, then ensure you write a decent commit log that describes who
> gets impacted by the bugfix and how it manifests itself, and when the
> bug was introduced. If you do that properly, then the commit will
> get handled appropriately and most likely get put in the patchworks
> stable queue if it really warrants it.
I will try to add a Fixes tag and explain more carefully the next
time. Sorry.
>
>
>
> Could you please tell me what happens if I don't include
> "net: stmmac: Disable EEE mode earlier in XMIT callback" ?
Probably a drop in performance. Not critical though.
>
>
> likewise if I don't include "net: stmmac: Send TSO packets always from
> Queue 0" ?
In my tests I get a drop in performance also.
>
> I assume that I will get a TX timeout if I try to send a TSO packet
> from a queue that does not support it?
No. Packets will still be sent but they will not be TSO packets.
>
> Also, we already define the TX queues in the snps,mtl-tx-config:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/stmmac.txt
>
> Wouldn't it be possible to add a snps,tso-capable property for each tx
> queue node that supports tso?
Yes but that would be more like a -next improvement.
Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Niklas
>
>>
>> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_ethtool.c | 14 ++++++++++----
>> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
>> include/linux/stmmac.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists