On 2019/06/25 18:32, Manish Chopra wrote:
[...]
> >
> > What I inferred from the presence of that expression though is that in the
> > places where it is used, the device interprets a value of 0 as 65536.
> > Manish,
> > can you confirm that? As David points out, the expression is useless. A
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: netdev-ow...@vger.kernel.org On
> Behalf Of Benjamin Poirier
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 1:22 PM
> To: David Miller
> Cc: Manish Chopra ; GR-Linux-NIC-Dev nic-...@marvell.com>; netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next
On 2019/06/23 10:59, David Miller wrote:
> From: Benjamin Poirier
> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:48:52 +0900
>
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Poirier
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlge/qlge.h | 6 ++
> > drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlge/qlge_main.c | 18 ++
> > 2 f
From: David Miller
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 10:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
> "(u16) 65536" is zero and the range of these values is 0 -- 65536.
>
> This whole expression is way overdone.
Also, when you post the next revision of this patch series, please
provide a proper "[PATCH net-next 00/16]" header post
From: Benjamin Poirier
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:48:52 +0900
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Poirier
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlge/qlge.h | 6 ++
> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlge/qlge_main.c | 18 ++
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff
