[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200304151958.GI4264@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:19:58 +0100
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
davem@...emloft.net, thomas.lendacky@....com, benve@...co.com,
_govind@....com, pkaustub@...co.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
alexandre.torgue@...com, joabreu@...opsys.com, snelson@...sando.io,
yisen.zhuang@...wei.com, salil.mehta@...wei.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
saeedm@...lanox.com, leon@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/12] ethtool: add infrastructure for
centralized checking of coalescing parameters
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 03:54:39PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 07:54:50PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > @@ -2336,6 +2394,11 @@ ethtool_set_per_queue_coalesce(struct net_device *dev,
> > goto roll_back;
> > }
> >
> > + if (!ethtool_set_coalesce_supported(dev, &coalesce)) {
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + goto roll_back;
> > + }
>
> Hi Jakub
>
> EOPNOTSUPP?
Out of the 11 drivers patched in the rest of the series, 4 used
EOPNOTSUPP, 3 EINVAL and 4 just ignored unsupported parameters so there
doesn't seem to be a clear consensus. Personally I find EOPNOTSUPP more
appropriate but it's quite common that drivers return EINVAL for
parameters they don't understand or support.
BtW, there is a v2 later.
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists