Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Feb 2023 21:15:15 +0100 (CET) | From | Richard Weinberger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [RFC] net: fec: Allow turning off IRQ coalescing |
| |
Wei Fang,
----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > Von: "wei fang" <wei.fang@nxp.com> >> /* Set threshold for interrupt coalescing */ >> -static void fec_enet_itr_coal_set(struct net_device *ndev) >> +static int fec_enet_itr_coal_set(struct net_device *ndev) >> { >> + bool disable_rx_itr = false, disable_tx_itr = false; >> struct fec_enet_private *fep = netdev_priv(ndev); > disable_rx_itr should be defined below fep to follow the style of the reverse > Christmas tree.
Of course, will fix in v2. >> - int rx_itr, tx_itr; >> + struct device *dev = &fep->pdev->dev; >> + int rx_itr = 0, tx_itr = 0; >> >> - /* Must be greater than zero to avoid unpredictable behavior */ >> - if (!fep->rx_time_itr || !fep->rx_pkts_itr || >> - !fep->tx_time_itr || !fep->tx_pkts_itr) >> - return; >> + if (!fep->rx_time_itr || !fep->rx_pkts_itr) { >> + if (fep->rx_time_itr || fep->rx_pkts_itr) { > > I think the below should be better: > if (!!fep->rx_time_itr == ! fep->rx_pkts_itr)
At least it's shorter. :-) I'm not sure which variant is easier to understand, though.
But in general you are fine with returning -EINVAL in this case? I'm asking because that a userspace visible change.
Thanks, //richard
| |