Re: [PATCH] igb: correct hardware type (i210/i211) check in igb_loopback_test()

[Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3506 bytes --]

On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 23:19 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 22:23 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Wyborny, Carolyn wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Jesper Juhl [mailto:jj@chaosbits.net] 
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:06 PM
> > > > > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net;
> > > Wyborny, Carolyn; Pieper, Jeffrey E; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Rick Jones;
> > > Ronciak, John; Brandeburg, Jesse; Allan, Bruce W; Skidmore, Donald C;
> > > Rose, Gregory V; Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P; Duyck, Alexander H; David S.
> > > Miller
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] igb: correct hardware type (i210/i211) check in
> > > igb_loopback_test()
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the original code
> > > > > ...
> > > > >     if ((adapter->hw.mac.type == e1000_i210)
> > > > >             || (adapter->hw.mac.type == e1000_i210)) { ...
> > > > > the second check of 'adapter->hw.mac.type' is pointless since it
> > > tests for the exact same value as the first.
> > > > > 
> > > > > After reading through a few other parts of the driver I believe
> > > that the second check was actually intended to check for 'e1000_i211'
> > > > > rather than 'e1000_i210', but I admit that I'm not certain so
> > > someone with more knowledge about this driver should ACK the patch
> > > before it gets merged.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Unfortunately I have no hardware to actually test this on, so it
> > > is compile tested only.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ethtool.c | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ethtool.c
> > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ethtool.c
> > > > > index a19c84c..ad489b7 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ethtool.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ethtool.c
> > > > > @@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ static int igb_loopback_test(struct
> > > igb_adapter *adapter, u64 *data)
> > > > >             goto out;
> > > > >     }
> > > > >     if ((adapter->hw.mac.type == e1000_i210)
> > > > > -           || (adapter->hw.mac.type == e1000_i210)) {
> > > > > +           || (adapter->hw.mac.type == e1000_i211)) {
> > > > >             dev_err(&adapter->pdev->dev,
> > > > >                     "Loopback test not supported "
> > > > >                     "on this part at this time.\n");
> > > > > --
> > > > > 1.7.11.3
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ACK.
> > > > 
> > > > Good catch.  Thanks Jesper!
> > > > 
> > > > Carolyn
> > > > 
> > > > Carolyn Wyborny
> > > > Linux Development
> > > > LAN Access Division
> > > > Intel Corporation
> > > > 
> > > Thank you for the ack Carolyn.
> > > 
> > > David: will you take this in the networking tree? 
> > 
> > I have a few igb patches already, so I will send a pull request for Dave
> > with this patch added to the igb patches I already have.  Ok?
> > 
> That's perfectly fine with me.
> 
> Perhaps you could consider also picking up the other one I sent a few 
> minutes after this one ?
>   Subject: [PATCH] igb: don't break user visible strings over multiple lines in igb_ethtool.c
>   Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1207252115321.11754@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>

Done.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]