Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: add missing fields to TXDCTL-register

[Henrik Austad]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 07:25:10AM -0700, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:37:59 +0200
> Henrik Austad  wrote:
> 
> > The current list of E1000_TXDCTL-registers is incomplete. This adds
> > the missing parts for the Transmit Descriptor Control (TXDCTL)
> > register.
> > 
> > The rest of these values (threshold for descriptor read/write) for
> > TXDCTL seems to be defined in igb/igb.h, not sure why this is split
> > though.
> 
> Hi Henrik, thanks for helping with our code.
> 
> While totally correct, having defines added to the kernel that are not
> being used anywhere in the code isn't really very useful.  Often the
> upstream maintainers/reviewers will reject a patch like this that just
> adds to a .h file, because there are no actual users of the defines.

Yes, I agree, best to avoid bloat whenever possible.

> If the transmit or ethtool code were to use these (via the same patch)
> or something like that, then the patch would be more likely to be
> accepted.

Ah, good to know. I am in the process of spinning out a new set of 
TSN-patches (previous version: see [1]) and setting the priority-bit for 
the Tx-queues is required. This means that I'm hacking more at igb_main.c.

So this was more about laying the groundwork for the series.

I'll leave this patch in the tsn-series then, and resend once I'm ready and 
hope you can provide some feedback on the rest of the series then :)

> Jesse
> 
> PS In the future no need to copy linux-kernel for patches going to our
> submaintainer list.

Ok, I'll remember that, thanks!

1) https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/11/187

-- 
Henrik Austad


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: add missing fields to TXDCTL-register

[Henrik Austad]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 07:25:10AM -0700, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:37:59 +0200
> Henrik Austad  wrote:
> 
> > The current list of E1000_TXDCTL-registers is incomplete. This adds
> > the missing parts for the Transmit Descriptor Control (TXDCTL)
> > register.
> > 
> > The rest of these values (threshold for descriptor read/write) for
> > TXDCTL seems to be defined in igb/igb.h, not sure why this is split
> > though.
> 
> Hi Henrik, thanks for helping with our code.
> 
> While totally correct, having defines added to the kernel that are not
> being used anywhere in the code isn't really very useful.  Often the
> upstream maintainers/reviewers will reject a patch like this that just
> adds to a .h file, because there are no actual users of the defines.

Yes, I agree, best to avoid bloat whenever possible.

> If the transmit or ethtool code were to use these (via the same patch)
> or something like that, then the patch would be more likely to be
> accepted.

Ah, good to know. I am in the process of spinning out a new set of 
TSN-patches (previous version: see [1]) and setting the priority-bit for 
the Tx-queues is required. This means that I'm hacking more at igb_main.c.

So this was more about laying the groundwork for the series.

I'll leave this patch in the tsn-series then, and resend once I'm ready and 
hope you can provide some feedback on the rest of the series then :)

> Jesse
> 
> PS In the future no need to copy linux-kernel for patches going to our
> submaintainer list.

Ok, I'll remember that, thanks!

1) https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/11/187

-- 
Henrik Austad


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: add missing fields to TXDCTL-register

[Jesse Brandeburg]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:37:59 +0200
Henrik Austad  wrote:

> The current list of E1000_TXDCTL-registers is incomplete. This adds
> the missing parts for the Transmit Descriptor Control (TXDCTL)
> register.
> 
> The rest of these values (threshold for descriptor read/write) for
> TXDCTL seems to be defined in igb/igb.h, not sure why this is split
> though.

Hi Henrik, thanks for helping with our code.

While totally correct, having defines added to the kernel that are not
being used anywhere in the code isn't really very useful.  Often the
upstream maintainers/reviewers will reject a patch like this that just
adds to a .h file, because there are no actual users of the defines.

If the transmit or ethtool code were to use these (via the same patch)
or something like that, then the patch would be more likely to be
accepted.

Jesse

PS In the future no need to copy linux-kernel for patches going to our
submaintainer list.

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: add missing fields to TXDCTL-register

[Jesse Brandeburg]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:37:59 +0200
Henrik Austad  wrote:

> The current list of E1000_TXDCTL-registers is incomplete. This adds
> the missing parts for the Transmit Descriptor Control (TXDCTL)
> register.
> 
> The rest of these values (threshold for descriptor read/write) for
> TXDCTL seems to be defined in igb/igb.h, not sure why this is split
> though.

Hi Henrik, thanks for helping with our code.

While totally correct, having defines added to the kernel that are not
being used anywhere in the code isn't really very useful.  Often the
upstream maintainers/reviewers will reject a patch like this that just
adds to a .h file, because there are no actual users of the defines.

If the transmit or ethtool code were to use these (via the same patch)
or something like that, then the patch would be more likely to be
accepted.

Jesse

PS In the future no need to copy linux-kernel for patches going to our
submaintainer list.