From: Jeremy Kerr <jk@codeconstruct.com.au>
To: Quan Nguyen <quan@os.amperecomputing.com>,
Matt Johnston <matt@codeconstruct.com.au>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org,
Open Source Submission <patches@amperecomputing.com>
Cc: Phong Vo <phong@os.amperecomputing.com>,
Thang Nguyen <thang@os.amperecomputing.com>,
Dung Cao <dung@os.amperecomputing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mctp i2c: Requeue the packet when arbitration is lost
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:40:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <852eaa7b5040124049e51ceba2d13a5799cb6748.camel@codeconstruct.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <706506b7-a89c-4dfc-b233-be7822eb056e@os.amperecomputing.com>
Hi Quan,
> With this commit, we all see the packets go through peacefully just
> by requeueing the packets at MCTP layer and eliminated the need to
> retry in PLDM layer which would need more time.
It's certainly possible that this tries harder to send MCTP packets,
but it's just duplicating the retry mechanism already present in the
i2c core.
Why do we need another retry mechanism here? How is the i2c core retry
mechanism not sufficient?
It would seem that you can get the same behaviour by adjusting the
retries/timeout limits in the core code, which has the advantage of
applying to all arbitration loss events on the i2c bus, not just for
MCTP tx.
Cheers,
Jeremy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-30 9:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-30 7:52 [PATCH] mctp i2c: Requeue the packet when arbitration is lost Quan Nguyen
2023-11-30 8:03 ` Jeremy Kerr
2023-11-30 8:39 ` Quan Nguyen
2023-11-30 9:40 ` Jeremy Kerr [this message]
2023-12-01 6:31 ` Quan Nguyen
2023-12-01 8:38 ` Jeremy Kerr
2023-12-01 11:47 ` Quan Nguyen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=852eaa7b5040124049e51ceba2d13a5799cb6748.camel@codeconstruct.com.au \
--to=jk@codeconstruct.com.au \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dung@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeconstruct.com.au \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=patches@amperecomputing.com \
--cc=phong@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=quan@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=thang@os.amperecomputing.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).