[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJht_EOhnrBG3R8vJS559nugtB0rHVNBdM_ypJWiAN_kywevrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 08:18:25 -0700
From: Xie He <xie.he.0141@...il.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/5] net: hdlc_fr: Simpify fr_rx by using
"goto rx_drop" to drop frames
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 7:33 AM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > - rx_error:
> > +rx_error:
> > frad->stats.rx_errors++; /* Mark error */
> > +rx_drop:
> > dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> > return NET_RX_DROP;
>
> I meant that I don't think errors should be double counted in rx_error
> and rx_drop. It is fine to count drops as either.
OK. Can we do that in another patch? Because I feel this would make
the code a little bit more complex. Let's keep this patch as only a
simple clean-up.
> Especially without that, I'm not sure this and the follow-on patch add
> much value. Minor code cleanups complicate backports of fixes.
To me this is necessary, because I feel hard to do any development on
un-cleaned-up code. I really don't know how to add my code without
these clean-ups, and even if I managed to do that, I would not be
happy with my code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists