Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:04:13 +0800
From:   Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com>
To:     Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: mvneta: split rxq/txq init into SW and HW
 parts
Message-ID: <20180330170413.73320f7f@xhacker.debian>
In-Reply-To: <20180329134259.3fe6165b@windsurf>
References: <20180329181220.61d63c92@xhacker.debian>
        <20180329181356.6489ee2e@xhacker.debian>
        <20180329134259.3fe6165b@windsurf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: synaptics.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2018 09:04:26.8801 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7876f1c4-b3b3-41c3-1c09-08d5961d3e0b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 335d1fbc-2124-4173-9863-17e7051a2a0e
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR03MB2640
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi,

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:42:59 +0200 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 18:13:56 +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > This is to prepare the suspend/resume improvement in next patch. The
> > SW parts can be optimized out during resume.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com>  
> 
> Thanks, I have two very minor nits below, but otherwise:
> 
> Acked-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>

Thanks for reviewing.

> 
> > +/* Create a specified RX queue */
> > +static int mvneta_rxq_init(struct mvneta_port *pp,
> > +			   struct mvneta_rx_queue *rxq)
> > +
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = mvneta_rxq_sw_init(pp, rxq);
> > +	if (ret)  
> 
> Here you're testing if (ret), while in mvneta_txq_init(), in the same
> situation, you're doing if (ret < 0). I don't have a preference for one
> or the other, but having them consistent between the two lpaces would
> be nice.

updated in v2.

> 
> > -/* Create and initialize a tx queue */
> > -static int mvneta_txq_init(struct mvneta_port *pp,
> > -			   struct mvneta_tx_queue *txq)
> > +static int mvneta_txq_sw_init(struct mvneta_port *pp,
> > +			      struct mvneta_tx_queue *txq)
> >  {
> >  	int cpu;
> >  
> > @@ -2872,7 +2889,6 @@ static int mvneta_txq_init(struct mvneta_port *pp,
> >  	txq->tx_stop_threshold = txq->size - MVNETA_MAX_SKB_DESCS;
> >  	txq->tx_wake_threshold = txq->tx_stop_threshold / 2;
> >  
> > -  
> 
> Spurious change.

There's an extra blank line here, so I removed it ;)

Thanks