Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of xilinx.com designates
 149.199.62.198 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=149.199.62.198; helo=xsj-pvapexch02.xlnx.xilinx.com;
Envelope-to: git@xilinx.com,
 mkl@pengutronix.de,
 wg@grandegger.com,
 davem@davemloft.net,
 kuba@kernel.org,
 linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
 netdev@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <fbe0314d-bfd3-cb0c-8af8-ab5bab276cc3@xilinx.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:41:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: xilinx_can: Add check for NAPI Poll function
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xilinx.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
CC:     "wg@grandegger.com" <wg@grandegger.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "linux-can@vger.kernel.org" <linux-can@vger.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao <appanad@xilinx.com>,
        Srinivas Goud <sgoud@xilinx.com>, git <git@xilinx.com>
References: <20220208162053.39896-1-srinivas.neeli@xilinx.com>
 <20220209074930.azbn26glrxukg4sr@pengutronix.de>
 <DM6PR02MB53861A46A48B4689F668BEE9AF2E9@DM6PR02MB5386.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <20220209083155.xma5m7tayy2atyoo@pengutronix.de>
 <DM6PR02MB53867DD5740FAA93CB5BC3B4AF2E9@DM6PR02MB5386.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR02MB53867DD5740FAA93CB5BC3B4AF2E9@DM6PR02MB5386.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2022 08:41:52.2394
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 25b050c4-4b2e-4631-8586-08d9eba80531
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 657af505-d5df-48d0-8300-c31994686c5c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=657af505-d5df-48d0-8300-c31994686c5c;Ip=[149.199.62.198];Helo=[xsj-pvapexch02.xlnx.xilinx.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN1NAM02FT011.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA1PR02MB8574
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi,

On 2/9/22 09:40, Srinivas Neeli wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:02 PM
>> To: Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@xilinx.com>
>> Cc: wg@grandegger.com; davem@davemloft.net; kuba@kernel.org; Michal
>> Simek <michals@xilinx.com>; linux-can@vger.kernel.org;
>> netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-
>> kernel@vger.kernel.org; Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao
>> <appanad@xilinx.com>; Srinivas Goud <sgoud@xilinx.com>; git
>> <git@xilinx.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: xilinx_can: Add check for NAPI Poll function
>>
>> On 09.02.2022 08:29:55, Srinivas Neeli wrote:
>>>> On 08.02.2022 21:50:53, Srinivas Neeli wrote:
>>>>> Add check for NAPI poll function to avoid enabling interrupts with
>>>>> out completing the NAPI call.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the patch. Does this fix a bug? If so, please add a Fixes:
>>>> tag that lists the patch that introduced that bug.
>>>
>>> It is not a bug. I am adding additional safety check( Validating the
>>> return value of "napi_complete_done" call).
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback. Should this go into can or can-next?
> 
> If possible please apply on both branches.

New feature should come to next. It means can-next please.

Thanks,
Michal