From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B798FC04AB1 for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 08:17:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5386B216C4 for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 08:17:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=synopsys.com header.i=@synopsys.com header.b="DP3elEC2" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726631AbfEIIRH (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 May 2019 04:17:07 -0400 Received: from dc8-smtprelay2.synopsys.com ([198.182.47.102]:49386 "EHLO smtprelay-out1.synopsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725822AbfEIIRH (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 May 2019 04:17:07 -0400 Received: from mailhost.synopsys.com (dc8-mailhost1.synopsys.com [10.13.135.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtprelay-out1.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26E2BC00FF; Thu, 9 May 2019 08:17:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=synopsys.com; s=mail; t=1557389830; bh=/rAPkCX+h3mO5IIHf8mYqsYYjiVjat0JV+HA8HZ9cZQ=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=DP3elEC22Raw6u58ZxKE6cHYO4d/vP2PxC4Zrcov3iVLEq/foyaeZFCp+dNRRmzqK 5okKSktu2buW2yf6QoVRhUtEW1cLTFmwTSHGYIOu8CINxDWvOOwCSbT3NLeCbixZ2f xeI42f4Od30xnZfYrAcUMRzT321E72HrLjXMkO/jVYpyE3MHzuA1wRxpvduZ2tcxKA VUCUHz3PE/+CtviIyNuFT8SPknWM8Rg9szSwmo1lWCK+i22U/9zb7vQkRmzexGwTmh a1F7CJ+McQN1N1rzsdX0W3iijq4J1gvPijzT25lrDwqB8IPKU4x2m3ROx7cJ/Um3Ds +bhzcEfMPX4xQ== Received: from US01WXQAHTC1.internal.synopsys.com (us01wxqahtc1.internal.synopsys.com [10.12.238.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCE96A00AF; Thu, 9 May 2019 08:17:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DE02WEHTCB.internal.synopsys.com (10.225.19.94) by US01WXQAHTC1.internal.synopsys.com (10.12.238.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 9 May 2019 01:17:05 -0700 Received: from DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com ([fe80::95ce:118a:8321:a099]) by DE02WEHTCB.internal.synopsys.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 9 May 2019 10:17:03 +0200 From: Jose Abreu To: Andrew Lunn , Jose Abreu CC: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Joao Pinto , "David S . Miller" , Giuseppe Cavallaro , Alexandre Torgue Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 00/11] net: stmmac: Selftests Thread-Topic: [PATCH net-next 00/11] net: stmmac: Selftests Thread-Index: AQHVBXLZwJ2RZgEDF0CNP6MWY759gKZhghGAgADw7NA= Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 08:17:02 +0000 Message-ID: <78EB27739596EE489E55E81C33FEC33A0B47AAEE@DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com> References: <20190508195011.GK25013@lunn.ch> In-Reply-To: <20190508195011.GK25013@lunn.ch> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.107.19.176] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Andrew Lunn Date: Wed, May 08, 2019 at 20:50:11 > The normal operation is interrupted by the tests you carry out > here. But i don't see any code looking for ETH_TEST_FL_OFFLINE Ok will fix to only run in offline mode then. >=20 > > (Error code -95 means EOPNOTSUPP in current HW). >=20 > How deep do you have to go before you know about EOPNOTSUPP? It would > be better to not return the string and result at all. Or patch ethtool > to call strerror(3). When I looked at other drivers I saw that they return positive value (1)=20 or zero so calling strerror in ethtool may not be ideal. I think its useful to let the user know if a given test is not supported=20 in HW so maybe I can return 1 instead of EOPNOTSUPP ? Thanks, Jose Miguel Abreu