Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Aug 2023 10:45:42 +0200 | Subject | Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v1 net] page_pool: Cap queue size to 32k. | From | Jesper Dangaard Brouer <> |
| |
On 14/08/2023 10.05, Ratheesh Kannoth wrote: >> From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> >> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v1 net] page_pool: Cap queue size to 32k. >>> Please find discussion at >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_l >>> >> I'm not the one who's going to apply this, but honestly, I don't think that will >> work as a commit message for such a change ... >> Sure, link to it by all means, but also summarize it and make sense of it for >> the commit message? > > Why do you think it will not work ?. There is a long discussion about pros and cons of different approaches by > Page pool maintainers in the discussion link. However I summarize it here, as commit message, it will > Lead to some more questions by reviewers. >
I agree with Johannes, this commit message is too thin.
It makes sense to give a summary of the discussion, because it show us (page_pool maintainers) what you concluded for the discussion.
Further more, you also send another patch: - "[PATCH net-next] page_pool: Set page pool size" - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230809021920.913324-1-rkannoth@marvell.com/
That patch solves the issue for your driver marvell/octeontx2 and I like than change.
Why did you conclude that PP core should also change?
--Jesper (p.s. Cc/To list have gotten excessive with 89 recipients)
| |