Subject: Re: [RFC v2 net-next 05/10] qede: Add basic network device support

From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:25:36 -0700

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:23:54 +0300
Yuval Mintz <[email-masked]> wrote:

> +#define QEDE_NAPI_WEIGHT	(NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT)
> +

Why not just use existing constant rather than walpapering?
> +
> +#define U64_LO(x)			((u32)(((u64)(x)) & 0xffffffff))
> +#define U64_HI(x)			((u32)(((u64)(x)) >> 32))
> +#define HILO_U64(hi, lo)		((((u64)(hi)) << 32) + (lo))

Why reinvent upper32 and lower32?

> +struct qede_rx_queue {
> +	__le16			*hw_cons_ptr;

The __ variants of constants should be reserved for use in user visible
API's

> +	struct sw_rx_data	*sw_rx_ring;
> +	u16			sw_rx_cons;
> +	u16			sw_rx_prod;
> +	struct qed_chain	rx_bd_ring;
> +	struct qed_chain	rx_comp_ring;
> +	void __iomem		*hw_rxq_prod_addr;
> +
> +	int			rx_buf_size;

Shouldn't rx_buf_size be unsigned?