From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Schmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: suppress repeated error messages about Max BW Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:13:28 +0200 Message-ID: <4E493798.7010405@redhat.com> References: <20110812143324.5740.45824.stgit@dhcp-29-224.brq.redhat.com> <1313405680.31417.6.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> <4E490A1E.3060209@redhat.com> <1313411585.31417.35.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Dmitry Kravkov , Vladislav Zolotarov To: eilong@broadcom.com Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5514 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754368Ab1HOPNc (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:13:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1313411585.31417.35.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/15/2011 02:33 PM, Eilon Greenstein wrote: > On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 04:59 -0700, Michal Schmidt wrote: >> and bnx2x_init_vn_minmax() calls bnx2x_extract_max_cfg() on the given >> VN, so it seems that the warning can be produced for a non-current VN. > > You are right, only one function (the PMF) will call this code for all > functions. But I suspect that if you have zero values, you will have > them for all VNs - is that the case? A tester reported getting only these 4 messages with the patch applied: [bnx2x_extract_max_cfg:1074(eth4)]Illegal configuration detected for Max BW on vn 2 - using 100 instead [bnx2x_extract_max_cfg:1074(eth5)]Illegal configuration detected for Max BW on vn 2 - using 100 instead [bnx2x_extract_max_cfg:1074(eth6)]Illegal configuration detected for Max BW on vn 3 - using 100 instead [bnx2x_extract_max_cfg:1074(eth7)]Illegal configuration detected for Max BW on vn 3 - using 100 instead This suggests that VNs 0 and 1 had non-zero Max BW configuration. Michal