netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/12] Add support for OPEN Alliance 10BASE-T1x MACPHY Serial Interface

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: <8b9f8c10-e6bf-47df-ad83-eaf2590d8625@microchip.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 13:04:52 +0000
From: <Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>
To: <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <horms@...nel.org>, <saeedm@...dia.com>,
	<anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <corbet@....net>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com>,
	<ruanjinjie@...wei.com>, <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
	<vladimir.oltean@....com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
	<Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com>, <Pier.Beruto@...emi.com>,
	<Selvamani.Rajagopal@...emi.com>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
	<benjamin.bigler@...nformulastudent.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/12] Add support for OPEN Alliance
 10BASE-T1x MACPHY Serial Interface

Hi Andrew,

On 08/05/24 10:34 pm, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
>> Yes. I tried this test. It works as expected.
> 
>>     Each LAN8651 received approximately 3Mbps with lot of "Receive buffer
>> overflow error". I think it is expected as the single SPI master has to
>> serve both LAN8651 at the same time and both LAN8651 will be receiving
>> 10Mbps on each.
> 
> Thanks for testing this.
> 
> This also shows the "Receive buffer overflow error" needs to go away.
> Either we don't care at all, and should not enable the interrupt, or
> we do care and should increment a counter.
Thanks for your comments. I think, I would go for your 2nd proposal 
because having "Receive buffer overflow error" enabled will indicate the 
cause of the poor performance.

Already we have,
tc6->netdev->stats.rx_dropped++;
to increment the rx dropped counter in case of receive buffer overflow.

May be we can remove the print,
net_err_ratelimited("%s: Receive buffer overflow error\n", 
tc6->netdev->name);
as it might lead to additional poor performance by adding some delay.

Could you please provide your opinion on this?

Best regards,
Parthiban V
> 
>          Andrew
>