lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next] net: ethernet: ti: cpdma: rate is not changed - correct case
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:10:06 +0200
>
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:50:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
> >> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 21:48:56 +0200
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 04:35:45PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >> >> From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
> >> >> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:41:18 +0200
> >> >>
> >> >> > If rate is the same as set it's correct case.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> > Based on net-next/master
> >> >> >
> >> >> > drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c | 2 +-
> >> >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c
> >> >> > index e4d6edf..dbe9167 100644
> >> >> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c
> >> >> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/davinci_cpdma.c
> >> >> > @@ -841,7 +841,7 @@ int cpdma_chan_set_rate(struct cpdma_chan *ch, u32 rate)
> >> >> > return -EINVAL;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > if (ch->rate == rate)
> >> >> > - return rate;
> >> >> > + return 0;
> >> >>
> >> >> Looking at the one and only caller of this function, cpsw_ndo_set_tx_maxrate, it
> >> >> makes sure this can never, ever, happen.
> >> > In current circumstances yes, it will never happen.
> >> > But I caught it while adding related code and better return 0 if upper caller
> >> > doesn't have such check. Suppose that cpdma module is responsible for itself
> >> > and if it's critical I can send this patch along with whole related series.
> >>
> >> You have to decide one way or the other, who is responsible.
> >>
> >> I think checking higher up is better because it's cheaper at that point to
> >> look at the per-netdev queue rate setting before moving down deeper into the
> >> driver specific data-structures.
> >
> > No objection, but upper caller not always knows current rate and for doing like
> > this it needs read it first, and this is also some redundancy.
>
> How can the upper caller not know the current rate? The rate is
> always stored in the generic netdev per-queue datastructure.
>
> And that's what existing code checks right now.
Right now, when generic netdev only caller - yes.

--
Regards,
Ivan Khoronzhuk

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-07 21:23    [W:0.042 / U:15.536 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site