[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b20b60a-c72d-4283-a8af-ff82bc5d1b19@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:53:57 +0200
From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, shuah@...nel.org, s-vadapalli@...com,
r-gunasekaran@...com, vigneshr@...com, srk@...com, horms@...nel.org,
p-varis@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 net-next 09/11] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw-qos: Add
Frame Preemption MAC Merge support
On 14/12/2023 15:50, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 03:44:03PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
>> On 14/12/2023 13:04, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>>> + /* verify_timeout_count can only be set at valid link */
>>>> + if (cfg->verify_time > 0)
>>>> + port->qos.iet.verify_time_ms = cfg->verify_time;
>>>> + else
>>>> + port->qos.iet.verify_time_ms = 10;
>>>
>>> I don't think I understand what the check is for? The netlink policy for
>>> ETHTOOL_A_MM_VERIFY_TIME limits the range between 1 ms and 128 ms.
>>> How can it be 0?
>>
>> I didn't check ETHTOOL_A_MM_VERIFY_TIME before.
>
> Not even when the exact same policy was rejecting the verify-time set by
> LLDP in v6, for being larger than the upper limit of 128 ms? :-/
Sorry. I did check it before but overlooked it here. My memory seems to be failing me. :(
--
cheers,
-roger
Powered by blists - more mailing lists