RE: [PATCH net-next] net: hns3: Refactors "reset" handling code in HCLGE layer of HNS3 driver

[Salil Mehta]

Hi Andrew,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lunn [mailto:andrew@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 1:44 PM
> To: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zhuangyuzeng (Yisen)
> <yisen.zhuang@xxxxxxxxxx>; lipeng (Y) <lipeng321@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> mehta.salil.lnk@xxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linuxarm
> <linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: hns3: Refactors "reset" handling
> code in HCLGE layer of HNS3 driver
> 
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:37:44AM +0000, Salil Mehta wrote:
> > This patch refactors the code of the reset feature in HCLGE layer
> > of HNS3 PF driver. Prime motivation to do this change is:
> > 1. To reduce the time for which common miscellaneous Vector 0
> >    interrupt is disabled because of the reset.
> > 2. Simplification of reset request submission and pending reset
> >    logic.
> > 3. Simplification of the common miscellaneous interrupt handler
> >    routine(for Vector 0) used to handle reset and other sources
> >    of Vector 0 interrupt.
> >
> > To achieve above below few things have been done:
> > 1. Interrupt is disabled while common miscellaneous interrupt
> >    handler is entered and re-enabled before it is exit. This
> >    reduces the interrupt handling latency as compared to older
> >    interrupt handling scheme where interrupt was being disabled
> >    in interrupt handler context and re-enabled in task context
> >    some time later.
> > 2. Introduces new reset service task for honoring software reset
> >    requests like from network stack related to timeout and serving
> >    the pending reset request(to reset the driver and associated
> >    clients).
> > 3. Made Miscellaneous interrupt handler more generic to handle
> >    all sources including reset interrupt source.
> 
> Hi Salil
> 
> This is a rather large patch. Can you break it up? It seems like you
> should be able to break it up into at least three parts, maybe more.
> 
> You are aiming to have small patches which are obviously correct. It
> is much easier to review than one big patch which is not obvious at
> all.
Ok. No issues. I will try to fix this in V2 version.

> 
> 	Andrew