From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Subject: Re: [net-next 03/15] net/mlx5e: PFC stall prevention support
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 18:18:15 +0200
Message-ID: <20180325161815.GB12820@lunn.ch>
References: <20180323223925.21678-1-saeedm@mellanox.com>
 <20180323223925.21678-4-saeedm@mellanox.com>
 <20180324150709.GD31941@lunn.ch>
 <220ed51e-5aeb-1a82-6c43-749e9cf8c4c1@mellanox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Inbar Karmy <inbark@mellanox.com>
To: Gal Pressman <galp@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:41395 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753451AbeCYQSR (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 25 Mar 2018 12:18:17 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <220ed51e-5aeb-1a82-6c43-749e9cf8c4c1@mellanox.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

> > Shouldn't you map a value of MLX5E_PFC_PREVEN_AUTO_TOUT_MSEC back to 
> > PFC_STORM_PREVENTION_AUTO?
> 
> We discussed this point internally, mapping MLX5E_PFC_PREVEN_AUTO_TOUT_MSEC (100) to
> PFC_STORM_PREVENTION_AUTO might cause confusion when the user explicitly asks for 100msec timeout
> and gets auto in his following query.
> Also, this way the "auto" timeout is visible to the user, which might help him get an initial
> clue of which values are recommended.

Yes, this is a fair point, which is why i asked the question. Either
way, it can cause confusion. 'I configured it to auto, but it always
returns 100, not auto.'

Whatever is decided, it should be consistent across drivers. So please
add some documentation to the ethtool header file about what is
expected.

	Andrew