Re: [PATCH v3] net: add Faraday FTMAC100 10/100 Ethernet driver

[Po-Yu Chuang]

Dear Joe,

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 13:03 +0800, Po-Yu Chuang wrote:
>> > Is it useful to retry the NORXBUF case?
>> The idea is that if I miss packet finished interrupts (then rx buffers used up),
>> I should retrieve the received packets ASAP to free buffers to HW.
>> Maybe this is really unnecessary.
>> I am not quite sure, but I'll do your advice now.
>
> I wasn't giving advice, just asking a question.
> Your concept makes sense to me.

I see. So I will leave it as is.

>> >> + Â Â if (status & FTMAC100_INT_NORXBUF) {
>> >> + Â Â Â Â Â Â /* RX buffer unavailable */
>> >> + Â Â Â Â Â Â if (net_ratelimit())
>> >> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â netdev_info(netdev, "INT_NORXBUF\n");
>> >> +
>> >> + Â Â Â Â Â Â netdev->stats.rx_over_errors++;
>> >> + Â Â }
>> >
>> > Perhaps this "if (status & FTMAC100_INT_NORXBUF)" block should be
>> > moved into the test block above it before the retry?
>>
>> Since status is not changed in the function, it does not matter where
>> the test is.
>> But I agree that it is better to handle error cases earlier.
>
> This wasn't so much a handle error case early, but
> a suggestion that
> Â Â Â Âif (status & (foo | bar)) {
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â...
> Â Â Â Â}
> Â Â Â Âif (status & bar) {
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â...
> Â Â Â Â}
> should be
> Â Â Â Âif (status & (foo | bar)) {
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â...
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âif (status & bar) {
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â...
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â}
> Â Â Â Â}
>
> so that when the first test fails, a known
> subset of the first test isn't tested again.

Understand. Thanks.

best regards,
Po-Yu Chuang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/