[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190522115916.vlnbna2vxnf7zhod@verge.net.au>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 13:59:16 +0200
From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Ulrich Hecht <uli@...nd.eu>,
Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, magnus.damm@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ravb: implement MTU change while device is up
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 02:09:54PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > > > > > > How about the code below instead?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if (netif_running(ndev))
> > > > > > > ravb_close(ndev);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ndev->mtu = new_mtu;
> > > > > > > netdev_update_features(ndev);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there a need to call netdev_update_features() even if the if is not
> > > > > > running?
> > > > >
> > > > > In my testing, it didn't seem so.
> > > >
> > > > That may be because your testing doesn't cover cases where it would make
> > > > any difference.
> > >
> > > Cases other than changing the MTU while the device is up?
> >
> > I was thinking of cases where listeners are registered for the
> > notifier that netdev_update_features() triggers.
>
> Where are we here? Is this a blocker?
I don't think this is a blocker but I would lean towards leaving
netdev_update_features() in unless we are certain its not needed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists