lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] net: thunderx: HW TSO support for pass-2 hardware
From
From: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 15:05:01 +0300

> Hello!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sunil
>> Goutham
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 2:38 PM
>> To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; p.fedin@samsung.com;
>> Sunil.Goutham@caviumnetworks.com; Sunil Goutham
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] net: thunderx: HW TSO support for pass-2 hardware
>>
>> From: Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@cavium.com>
>>
>> This adds support for offloading TCP segmentation to HW in pass-2
>> revision of hardware. Both driver level SW TSO for pass1.x chips
>> and HW TSO for pass-2 chip will co-exist.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@cavium.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/nic.h | 12 ++++++--
>> drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/nic_main.c | 11 ++-----
>> drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/nicvf_main.c | 15 ++++++++-
>> drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/nicvf_queues.c | 20 ++++++++++---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/q_struct.h | 30 ++++++++++---------
>> 5 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/nic.h
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/nic.h
>> index 39ca674..02571f4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/nic.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/nic.h
>> @@ -262,9 +262,10 @@ struct nicvf {
>> struct pci_dev *pdev;
>> u8 vf_id;
>> u8 node;
>> - u8 tns_mode:1;
>> - u8 sqs_mode:1;
>> - u8 loopback_supported:1;
>> + bool tns_mode:1;
>> + bool sqs_mode:1;
>
> These little refactors are creeping in your code without even being mentioned in the commit message, this is not good practice
> IMHO. Additionally, may be turn these two flags into something like:

Also I disagree completely with boolean bitfields. Just use plain 'bool' and let
the compiler decide how to lay it out.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-09 21:41    [W:0.054 / U:0.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site