On 25-Mar-18 19:18, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>> 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.
We didn't want to limit other drivers implementation, but I agree that consistency across drivers is important in this case. We will find a proper place to document it. > > Andrew >
