Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] hv_netvsc: Properly size the vrss queues

From: Dan Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 16:57:44 +0300

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:52:47PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:06 AM
> > To: KY Srinivasan
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; linux-
> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] hv_netvsc: Properly size the vrss queues
> > 
> > Since you're redoing this anyway.
> > 
> > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:21:09PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/hyperv/hyperv_net.h
> > b/drivers/net/hyperv/hyperv_net.h
> > > index ddcc7f8..dd45440 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/hyperv/hyperv_net.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/hyperv/hyperv_net.h
> > > @@ -161,6 +161,7 @@ struct netvsc_device_info {
> > >  	unsigned char mac_adr[ETH_ALEN];
> > >  	bool link_state;	/* 0 - link up, 1 - link down */
> > >  	int  ring_size;
> > > +	u32  max_num_vrss_chns;
> > 
> > We (Joe and I) have commented before that long names don't mix well with
> > the 80 character limit.  You could just leave the "num_" out.  Almost
> > all variables are numbers in C so it doesn't add anything.
> 
> Thanks Dan. Actually I sent out the revised patch yesterday and I currently don't
> Have the 80 char issue. If it is ok with Dave, I will not re-spin the patch. However, I will
> note this comment for future work.

Yes.  I saw that.  Fine fine.  It wasn't a redo the patch worthy
comment.  :P

regards,
dan carpenter