From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFFBB174DF for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 21:25:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADF8DC433C7; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 21:25:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1691443501; bh=+FYo2DwDk8INex7fJWh2qszXosFc40/Un31WZbKy/GM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bcTW4SA6mIgaRX8m+K9PvCf0DcqYWxbda6M2ZE8LqC2un6Rsqpf91ozIcDCbMrwri P4ZScYQ8kXN9oYXpUqlndA/CLbFZn+GT6dABSAUrjI5neqYD/YCO/7RifYNFRfxrz0 Z8WROuYhxJ2+mirSWVEzKTOSceRbhYOhpn6NLhlecD7ORazcDZVheqQpegFlgJZiNj 3vJLCajSK0O12k9+M3uUWjHXcwUrs/vH4ElG0u0VQ3g+8cMUWeG67BGjJmea/oQcnn PpQeXI1tZQmR7xYNdf5LWcfc5+FOgfyixy8M163kVuQghhv8ySgMi5w1+35RSn8w0G C8+Jupwgvs+UQ== Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:24:59 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Thinh Tran Cc: aelior@marvell.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, manishc@marvell.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, skalluru@marvell.com, drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com, abdhalee@in.ibm.com, simon.horman@corigine.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] bnx2x: Fix error recovering in switch configuration Message-ID: <20230807142459.5950f237@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <7b4904f5-ceb1-9409-dd79-e96abfe35382@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20220916195114.2474829-1-thinhtr@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20230728211133.2240873-1-thinhtr@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20230731174716.0898ff62@kernel.org> <7b4904f5-ceb1-9409-dd79-e96abfe35382@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:08:50 -0500 Thinh Tran wrote: > > Could you split the change into two patches - one factoring out the > > code into bnx2x_stop_nic() and the other adding the nic_stopped > > variable? First one should be pure code refactoring with no functional > > changes. That'd make the reviewing process easier. > > Sorry, I misunderstood comments in the reviewing of v3 asking to factor > the code. > Should I keep the changes I made, or should I summit a new patch with > factored code? I am not sure what you're asking. In v5 I'm hoping to see 3 patches (as a single series!) patch 1 - factor out the disabling into a helper patch 2 - introduce the bp->nic_stopped checking patch 3 - changes to bnx2x_tx_timeout()