[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200914084810.36fc1f40@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:48:10 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, mkubecek@...e.cz,
michael.chan@...adcom.com, tariqt@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
alexander.duyck@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/8] ethtool: add standard pause stats
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 03:48:40 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > static int pause_prepare_data(const struct ethnl_req_info *req_base,
> > @@ -34,10 +36,17 @@ static int pause_prepare_data(const struct ethnl_req_info *req_base,
> >
> > if (!dev->ethtool_ops->get_pauseparam)
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > ret = ethnl_ops_begin(dev);
> > if (ret < 0)
> > return ret;
> > dev->ethtool_ops->get_pauseparam(dev, &data->pauseparam);
> > + if (req_base->flags & ETHTOOL_FLAG_STATS &&
> > + dev->ethtool_ops->get_pause_stats) {
> > + memset(&data->pausestat, 0xff,
> > + sizeof(struct ethtool_pause_stats));
>
> Sorry, i missed v1 of these patches. Maybe this has been commented?
>
> Filling with 0xff is odd. I don't know of any other code doing this.
Are you saying it'd be clearer to assign ETHTOOL_STAT_NOT_SET in a loop?
Or do you think the mechanism of using ~0 as "not reported" is not good?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists