[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78EB27739596EE489E55E81C33FEC33A0B47AAEE@DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 08:17:02 +0000
From: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...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>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 00/11] net: stmmac: Selftests
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Date: Wed, May 08, 2019 at 20:50:11
> The normal operation is interrupted by the tests you carry out
> here. But i don't see any code looking for ETH_TEST_FL_OFFLINE
Ok will fix to only run in offline mode then.
>
> > (Error code -95 means EOPNOTSUPP in current HW).
>
> How deep do you have to go before you know about EOPNOTSUPP? It would
> be better to not return the string and result at all. Or patch ethtool
> to call strerror(3).
When I looked at other drivers I saw that they return positive value (1)
or zero so calling strerror in ethtool may not be ideal.
I think its useful to let the user know if a given test is not supported
in HW so maybe I can return 1 instead of EOPNOTSUPP ?
Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists