[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190626113959.GC27420@f1>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:39:59 +0900
From: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com>
To: Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>
Cc: GR-Linux-NIC-Dev <GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@...vell.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] [PATCH net-next 05/16] qlge: Remove rx_ring.sbq_buf_size
On 2019/06/26 09:36, Manish Chopra wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:19 PM
> > To: Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>; GR-Linux-NIC-Dev <GR-Linux-
> > NIC-Dev@...vell.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: [EXT] [PATCH net-next 05/16] qlge: Remove rx_ring.sbq_buf_size
> >
> > External Email
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Tx rings have sbq_buf_size = 0 but there's no case where the code actually
> > tests on that value. We can remove sbq_buf_size and use a constant instead.
> >
>
> Seems relevant to RX ring, not the TX ring ?
qlge uses "struct rx_ring" for rx and for tx completion rings.
The driver's author is probably laughing now at the success of his plan
to confuse those who would follow in his footsteps.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists