netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] selftests: net: Add port split test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0429f5e6-6c7d-4d61-49a6-ce2e9c4e337b@mellanox.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 18:23:50 +0300
From:   Danielle Ratson <danieller@...lanox.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        jiri@...lanox.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, saeedm@...lanox.com, leon@...nel.org,
        snelson@...sando.io, drivers@...sando.io, vivien.didelot@...il.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] selftests: net: Add port split test

On 5/20/2020 4:53 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, May 20, 2020 at 03:43:40PM CEST, idosch@...sch.org wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:33:06PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>> It's basically the number of lanes
>>> Then why not call it lanes? It makes it clearer how this maps to the
>>> hardware?
>> I'm not against it. We discussed it and decided to go with width. Jiri /
>> Danielle, are you OK with changing to lanes?
> Sure, no problem.


Hi Andrew,


Maximum number of lanes, is the maximum lanes capacity of the port. 

Besides that, there is the number of utilized lanes, which is the number of lanes that are actually used.


In that patch we expose the maximum number of lanes, and in my opinion "width" describes that better, and "lanes" on the other hand, can refer to both.

Thanks