RE: [RFC v2 net-next 05/10] qede: Add basic network device support

2015-09-29 Thread Yuval Mintz
> > >> > +struct qede_rx_queue { > > >> > + __le16 *hw_cons_ptr; > > >> > > >> The __ variants of constants should be reserved for use in user > > >> visible API's > > > > > > Really? If so, this needs to be fixed not only here but in lots of > > > places in the series [e.g.,

RE: [RFC v2 net-next 05/10] qede: Add basic network device support

2015-09-24 Thread Yuval Mintz
> >> > +struct qede_rx_queue { > >> > +__le16 *hw_cons_ptr; > >> > >> The __ variants of constants should be reserved for use in user > >> visible API's > > > > Really? If so, this needs to be fixed not only here but in lots of > > places in the series [e.g., entire HW HSI

Re: [RFC v2 net-next 05/10] qede: Add basic network device support

2015-09-24 Thread David Miller
From: Yuval Mintz Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:43:06 + >> > +struct qede_rx_queue { >> > + __le16 *hw_cons_ptr; >> >> The __ variants of constants should be reserved for use in user visible API's > > Really? If so, this needs to be fixed not only here but in lots of places >

RE: [RFC v2 net-next 05/10] qede: Add basic network device support

2015-09-24 Thread Yuval Mintz
> > > +#define QEDE_NAPI_WEIGHT (NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT) > > Why not just use existing constant rather than walpapering? No reason; We'll remove it. > > > +#define U64_LO(x)((u32)(((u64)(x)) & 0x)) > > > +#define U64_HI(x)((u32)(((u64)(x)) >> 32))

Re: [RFC v2 net-next 05/10] qede: Add basic network device support

2015-09-24 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:23:54 +0300 Yuval Mintz wrote: > +#define QEDE_NAPI_WEIGHT (NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT) > + Why not just use existing constant rather than walpapering? > + > +#define U64_LO(x)((u32)(((u64)(x)) & 0x)) > +#define U64_HI(x)((u32)(((u