From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] LRO: fix return code propogation Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080822.032054.254235784.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080822005122.4697.26953.stgit@jtkirshe-mobile.jf.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com To: jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:49487 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760195AbYHVKUz (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:20:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080822005122.4697.26953.stgit@jtkirshe-mobile.jf.intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Jeff Kirsher Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:51:24 -0700 > From: Jesse Brandeburg > > LRO code needs to propogate the return values from the netif_rx and > netif_receive_skb calls specifically to allow drivers that need that > information to react correctly. Some places in the code couldn't > return the result of the upcall to the stack, so I added the dropped > counter, which just completes the cache line of the stats struct (on > 64-bit), so shouldn't be a big deal. > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg > Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher Too vague a commit description. This patch makes a bunch of routines return status codes, but there is no given example of a precise intended usage. That part might be incorrect (the return value isn't actually needed or the code in question is doing something wrong), which is why providing such example is important. So I'm dropping this. Please provide such info in any resubmission or I'll just ignore it, thanks.