[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABAhCOSvo4OemcevEnNmk3Jny_YEoCb3s9GPC6o217oj-t5FnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 16:45:32 +0800
From: Xiao Liang <shaw.leon@...il.com>
To: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 7/8] tools/net/ynl: Add retry limit for async notification
On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 1:16 AM Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com> wrote:
>
> It's then a question of whether we need the repeat logic in poll_ntf()
> because it's always possible to use check_ntf() in your own repeat
> logic. Either way, I'd prefer not to call the parameter "max_retries"
> because semantically I don't think we are retrying - it is a count of
> how many times to repeat the poll. Thoughts? Should it be a "duration"
> parameter?
Yes, a "duration" is better. The meaning of "retry" or "count" is not clear.
The original check_ntf() is good enough for the test case in this
series. Could you make the change, or do you prefer me to submit
another patch?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists