From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kumar Sanghvi Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] cxgb4: Add support to recognize 40G links Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:37:42 +0600 Message-ID: <20140221043741.GI30109@kumar-pc.asicdesigners.com> References: <1392726375-32001-1-git-send-email-hariprasad@chelsio.com> <1392726375-32001-2-git-send-email-hariprasad@chelsio.com> <53051E48.9050901@opengridcomputing.com> <53064459.3030106@chelsio.com> <5306548A.2090406@chelsio.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Hariprasad Shenai , netdev , David Miller , , , To: Casey Leedom , Florian Fainelli , Steve Wise Return-path: Received: from stargate.chelsio.com ([67.207.112.58]:30425 "EHLO stargate.asicdesigners.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752603AbaBUFg0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:36:26 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5306548A.2090406@chelsio.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday, February 02/20/14, 2014 at 11:16:26 -0800, Casey Leedom wrote: > > On 02/20/14 11:00, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >2014-02-20 10:07 GMT-08:00 Casey Leedom : > >>On 02/19/14 13:12, Steve Wise wrote: > >>> > >>>You probably should add SPEED_40000 to include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h as > >>>part of this series. > >> > >> I'm ~pretty sure~ that the "word on the street" was that the community > >>wanted to get away from the SPEED_XXX symbols since they simply represented > >>the values XXX. Thus they didn't offer any real symbolic isolation from > >>weird constants, etc. I believe that the old SPEED_XXX values were left in > >>place in order to avoid making tons of changes everywhere ... > >Not quite sure where and when you heard that, it seems a little > >disturbing to add a comment in this patch saying "this I how I should > >fix things" and not do them, especially when this is a one-liner. > >Having a well defined constant is easier to grep than having the > >open-coded 40000 constant which will lead to false positives > >throughout the tree. > > Like I said, it was a vague memory at best from over a year ago. I > seem to remember someone on our team trying to push SPEED_40000 into > the kernel and getting rebuffed. Perhaps I didn't have enough > coffee that day. > > In any case, I personally like the idea of SPEED_40000 for exactly > the reason you offer: I can search for it meaningfully. So If my > vague memory is wrong, yeay! BTW, I just now found below thread and discussion related to SPEED_40000 http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg201449.html > > Casey > > >-- > >Florian > >