On 12/17/2018 9:21 AM, Lam, Tiago wrote: > Hi Ferruh, > > On 28/11/2018 13:33, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 11/28/2018 1:12 PM, Lam, Tiago wrote: >>> On 27/11/2018 17:43, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>> On 11/20/2018 10:26 AM, Tiago Lam wrote: >>>>> Use the underlying MTU to calculate the framsize to be used for the mmap >>>>> RINGs. This is to make it more flexible on deployments with different >>>>> MTU requirements, instead of using a pre-defined value of 2048B. >>>> >>>> This behavior change should be documented in af_packet documentation which >>>> is >>>> missing unfortunately. >>>> Would you able to introduce the initial/basic af_packet doc to at least to >>>> document device argument? If not please let me know, I can work on it. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for the review, Ferruh. >>> >>> Yeah, I don't mind cooking something up and submitting here for review; >>> I'll wait a couple of days for a reply from John W. before proceeding, >>> though. >> >> Thanks, appreciated. Agreed to wait a little. >> >>> >>> But given there's no documentation for af_packet yet, do you prefer to >>> wait for that to be available, and apply it all together? Or could that >>> be applied later as part of another patch? >> >> Both are OK, depends on your availability. >> >> I think it is better, to show the history, first patch as the documentation >> patch for existing behavior and your patch updating framsz usage (3/3) to >> update >> that document as well. > > As agreed, I just sent a patch with an initial take on adding some docs > for af_packet. Once that's in I'll submit another revision of this > patchset, including an update to the documentation. > > Just an aside, patch 1/3 of this series is a bugfix, it could go in > irrespective of the documentation, it seems.
Agreed. Doc patch is merged, I will get first patch and will wait for a new version for next.
