[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200717123239.1ffb5966@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:32:39 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/6] enetc: Add interrupt coalescing support
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 18:37:03 +0300 Claudiu Manoil wrote:
> + if (ic->rx_max_coalesced_frames != ENETC_RXIC_PKTTHR)
> + netif_warn(priv, hw, ndev, "rx-frames fixed to %d\n",
> + ENETC_RXIC_PKTTHR);
> +
> + if (ic->tx_max_coalesced_frames != ENETC_TXIC_PKTTHR)
> + netif_warn(priv, hw, ndev, "tx-frames fixed to %d\n",
> + ENETC_TXIC_PKTTHR);
On second thought - why not return an error here? Since only one value
is supported seems like the right way to communicate to the users that
they can't change this.
> + if (netif_running(ndev) && changed) {
> + /* reconfigure the operation mode of h/w interrupts,
> + * traffic needs to be paused in the process
> + */
> + enetc_stop(ndev);
> + enetc_start(ndev);
Is start going to print an error when it fails? Kinda scary if this
could turn into a silent failure.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists