From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: [patch 10/10] can: c_can : Disable rx split as workaround Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 19:41:28 +0200 Message-ID: <533EEEC8.3090905@hartkopp.net> References: <20140404134816.751883017@linutronix.de> <20140404134858.173427806@linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.162]:10016 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753120AbaDDRld (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Apr 2014 13:41:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140404134858.173427806@linutronix.de> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner , linux-can Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde , Wolfgang Grandegger , Alexander Stein -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [patch 10/10] can: c_can : Disable rx split as workaround (..) +config CAN_C_CAN_NO_RX_SPLIT + bool "Disable RX Split buffer" + ---help--- + RX Split buffer prevents packet reordering but can cause packet + loss. Select the less of the two evils. + Can you try to use something more understandable for the Kconfig option? AFAICS there are the options: 1. Frames are in order but may get lost. 2. Frames do not get lost but may be disordered. No user/kernel builder knows about "rx split buffers" ... What about +config CAN_C_CAN_STRICT_FRAME_ORDERING + bool "Force a strict RX CAN frame order (may cause frame loss)" + ---help--- + The RX split buffer prevents packet reordering but can cause packet + loss. Only enable this option when you accept to lose CAN frames + in favor of getting the received CAN frames in the correct order. + Regards, Oliver ps. Your patches are attached in my mail client, which makes it hard to comment the code inline.