|
From: Vick, M. <mat...@in...> - 2013-03-20 22:55:21
|
On 3/20/13 12:11 PM, "Jiri Benc" <jb...@re...> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:17:25 +0000, Vick, Matthew wrote: >> Good catch on this, Jiri! I know the math works out the same, but I'd >> prefer it if you changed the max_adj value to 999999999, since that is >> technically what we can accept before we have any issues. If you >>re-submit >> with this change, I'll add my ACK and we can run it through our internal >> testing. Thanks! > >But the real maximum value is actually 999999881, as anything higher >than that would be capped to 999999881 by the driver. I don't think the >driver should advertise higher max_adj than it is able to fulfill, >otherwise there would be no need for the field. I prefer 999999999 as it's something that looks slightly less "magic number"-y (plus looks like the other devices in igb) and is still technically something that can be passed down without error. Ultimately not a big deal and I can understand your argument, so I'm okay putting my personal preference aside on this one. |