On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 13:30 -0800, Cong Wang wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 4:25 PM Saeed Mahameed <sae...@mellanox.com> > wrote: > > From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> > > I don't know why you want to make me as the author here, but I never > agree on _your_ updates on my previous patch. > > Please see below. >
sorry, i just took your patch and worked on top of it, i thought you would like to get the credit for this. > > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c > > index 1d0bb5ff8c26..f86e4804e83e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c > > @@ -732,6 +732,8 @@ static u8 get_ip_proto(struct sk_buff *skb, int > > network_depth, __be16 proto) > > ((struct ipv6hdr > > *)ip_p)->nexthdr; > > } > > > > +#define short_frame(size) ((size) <= ETH_ZLEN + ETH_FCS_LEN) > > + > > I don't agree on unconditionally comparing with ETH_ZLEN + > ETH_FCS_LEN. > This is more relaxed and it covers both cases unconditionally. > > > static inline void mlx5e_handle_csum(struct net_device *netdev, > > struct mlx5_cqe64 *cqe, > > struct mlx5e_rq *rq, > > @@ -754,6 +756,17 @@ static inline void mlx5e_handle_csum(struct > > net_device *netdev, > > if (unlikely(test_bit(MLX5E_RQ_STATE_NO_CSUM_COMPLETE, &rq- > > >state))) > > goto csum_unnecessary; > > > > + /* CQE csum doesn't cover padding octets in short ethernet > > + * frames. And the pad field is appended prior to > > calculating > > + * and appending the FCS field. > > + * > > + * Detecting these padded frames requires to verify and > > parse > > + * IP headers, so we simply force all those small frames to > > be > > + * CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY even if they are not padded. > > This is inaccurate and misleading, it is unnecessary only if the > packet > passes the if check right below the goto label 'csum_unnecessary', > otherwise still a CHECKSUM_NONE. IOW, you are not forcing anything > here. > yes, the comment is not 100% accurate, but it delivers the message. > > + */ > > + if (short_frame(skb->len)) > > Missed an "unlikely()". Short frames are rare, comparing to non-short > ones. > > I respect your judgement on CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY, even when > I still disagree with you. Please respect me by not forcing me to > accept > any updates from you, IOW, kindly removing my name from anything > in this commit, SoB and authorship. > > Thank you for your understanding! Again sorry about this, will be more careful in the future. Thanks for your support and great work.
