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:   Sat, 25 Aug 2018 20:07:21 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     "lipeng (Y)" <lipeng321@huawei.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com,
        yisen.zhuang@huawei.com, salil.mehta@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH NET 3/3] net: hns: add configuration constraints for
 1000M half
Message-ID: <20180825180721.GB23992@lunn.ch>
References: <1535082143-122281-1-git-send-email-lipeng321@huawei.com>
 <1535082143-122281-4-git-send-email-lipeng321@huawei.com>
 <20180824034119.GA29111@lunn.ch>
 <194ac663-94d8-55e2-0231-a6be53e35f04@huawei.com>
 <20180824132857.GA1999@lunn.ch>
 <7c40c758-2ef2-665d-f429-0cc4e63a7a38@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <7c40c758-2ef2-665d-f429-0cc4e63a7a38@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> This patch is a? theoretical protect, and the problem does not really?
> happen.
> 
> I think you really get the point, do you think we need this patch?

I think it is not needed.

And if it was needed, it would indicate there is a bug somewhere else.

    Andrew