On 3/20/13 12:11 PM, "Jiri Benc" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:17:25 +0000, Vick, Matthew wrote: >> Good catch on this, Jiri! I know the math works out the same, but I'd >> prefer it if you changed the max_adj value to 999999999, since that is >> technically what we can accept before we have any issues. If you >>re-submit >> with this change, I'll add my ACK and we can run it through our internal >> testing. Thanks! > >But the real maximum value is actually 999999881, as anything higher >than that would be capped to 999999881 by the driver. I don't think the >driver should advertise higher max_adj than it is able to fulfill, >otherwise there would be no need for the field.
I prefer 999999999 as it's something that looks slightly less "magic number"-y (plus looks like the other devices in igb) and is still technically something that can be passed down without error. Ultimately not a big deal and I can understand your argument, so I'm okay putting my personal preference aside on this one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
