Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 3/9] net: enetc: only commit preemptible TCs to hardware when MM TX is active

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 07:34:53PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 04:42:52PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > +	/* This will time out after the standard value of 3 verification
> > > +	 * attempts. To not sleep forever, it relies on a non-zero verify_time,
> > > +	 * guarantee which is provided by the ethtool nlattr policy.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	return read_poll_timeout(enetc_port_rd, val,
> > > +				 ENETC_MMCSR_GET_VSTS(val) == 3,
> > 
> > nit: 3 is doing a lot of work here.
> >      As a follow-up, perhaps it could become part of an enum?
> 
> IMHO it's easy to abuse enums, when numbers could do just fine. I think
> that in context (seeing the entire enetc_ethtool.c), this is not as bad
> as just this patch makes it to be, because the other occurrence of
> ENETC_MMCSR_GET_VSTS() is:
> 
> 	switch (ENETC_MMCSR_GET_VSTS(val)) {
> 	case 0:
> 		state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_DISABLED;
> 		break;
> 	case 2:
> 		state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_VERIFYING;
> 		break;
> 	case 3:
> 		state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_SUCCEEDED;
> 		break;
> 	case 4:
> 		state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_FAILED;
> 		break;
> 	case 5:
> 	default:
> 		state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_UNKNOWN;
> 		break;
> 	}
> 
> so it's immediately clear what the 3 represents (in vim I just press '*'
> to see the other occurrences of ENETC_MMCSR_GET_VSTS).

Thanks.

I did see the code above, and I do agree it is informational
wrt the meaning of the values.

> I considered it, but I don't feel an urgent necessity to add an enum here.
> Doing that would essentially transform the code into:
> 
> 	return read_poll_timeout(enetc_port_rd, val,
> 				 ENETC_MMCSR_GET_VSTS(val) == ENETC_MM_VSTS_SUCCEEDED,
> 
> 	switch (ENETC_MMCSR_GET_VSTS(val)) {
> 	case ENETC_MMCSR_VSTS_DISABLED:
> 		state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_DISABLED;
> 		break;
> 	case ENETC_MMCSR_VSTS_VERIFYING:
> 		state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_VERIFYING;
> 		break;
> 	case ENETC_MMCSR_VSTS_SUCCEEDED:
> 		state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_SUCCEEDED;
> 		break;
> 	case ENETC_MMCSR_VSTS_FAILED:
> 		state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_FAILED;
> 		break;
> 	case ENETC_MMCSR_VSTS_UNKNOWN:
> 	default:
> 		state->verify_status = ETHTOOL_MM_VERIFY_STATUS_UNKNOWN;
> 		break;
> 	}
> 
> which to my eye is more bloated.

I guess it's subjective.
I certainly don't feel strongly about this.
And I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my idea.

I have no objections to leaving this patch as is (with '3').