On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Michael Chan <michael.c...@broadcom.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Rick Jones <rick.jon...@hpe.com> wrote: >> >> Should anything then happen with: >> >> /* No rx interrupts will be generated if both are zero */ >> if ((ec->rx_coalesce_usecs == 0) && >> (ec->rx_max_coalesced_frames == 0)) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> >> which is the next block of code? The logic there seems to suggest that it >> was intended to be able to have an rx_coalesce_usecs of 0 and rely on packet >> arrival to trigger an interrupt. Presumably setting rx_max_coalesced_frames >> to 1 to disable interrupt coalescing. >> > > I remember writing this block of code over 10 years ago for early > generations of the chip. Newer chips seem to behave differently and > rx_coalesce_usecs can never be zero. So this block can be removed now > that the condition can never be true. We should probably leave a > comment there for future reference. Thanks Rick for identifying this. Thanks Michael for your inputs. I will submit a patch with removal of this block of code and add a comment for future reference.
