From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinicius Costa Gomes Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:24:02 -0800 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v1 1/9] ethtool: Add support for configuring frame preemption In-Reply-To: <20201207152126.6f3d1808@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com> References: <20201202045325.3254757-1-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> <20201202045325.3254757-2-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> <20201205094325.790b187f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <87eek11d23.fsf@intel.com> <20201207152126.6f3d1808@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com> Message-ID: <87blf5ywkd.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: Jakub Kicinski writes: > On Mon, 07 Dec 2020 14:11:48 -0800 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote: >> Jakub Kicinski writes: >> >> + * @min_frag_size_mult: Minimum size for all non-final fragment size, >> >> + * expressed in terms of X in '(1 + X)*64 + 4' >> > >> > Is this way of expressing the min frag size from the standard? >> > >> >> The standard has this: "A 2-bit integer value indicating, in units of 64 >> octets, the minimum number of octets over 64 octets required in >> non-final fragments by the receiver" from IEEE 802.3br-2016, Table >> 79-7a. > > Thanks! Let's drop the _mult suffix and add a mention of this > controlling the addFragSize variable from the standard. Perhaps > it should in fact be called add_frag_size (with an explanation > that the "additional" means "above the 64B" which are required in > Ethernet, and which are accounted for by the "1" in the 1 + X > formula)? Sounds good :-) Will add a comment with the standard reference and change the name to 'add_frag_size'. Cheers, -- Vinicius