On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 4:28 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 11:49:50 -0700 Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > > + dev->ethtool_ops->get_ringparam(dev, &ringparam,
> > > > + &kernel_ringparam, extack);
> > > > + if (kernel_ringparam.tcp_data_split != ETHTOOL_TCP_DATA_SPLIT_ENABLED ||
> > > > + kernel_ringparam.tcp_data_split_thresh) {
> > > > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack,
> > > > + "tcp-header-data-split is disabled or threshold is not zero");
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > Maybe just my personal opinion, but IMHO these checks should be separate
> > > so the error message can be more concise/clear.
> > >
> >
> > Good point. The error message in itself is valuable.
>
> If you mean that the error message is more intuitive than debugging why
> PP_FLAG_ALLOW_UNREADABLE_NETMEM isn't set - I agree :)
>
> I vote to keep the patch, FWIW. Maybe add a comment that for now drivers
> should not set PP_FLAG_ALLOW_UNREADABLE_NETMEM, anyway, but this gives
> us better debuggability, and in the future we may find cases where
> doing a copy is cheaper than buffer circulation (and therefore may lift
> this check).
Okay, I will not drop this patch in v4 patch.
So, I just will fix what Brett and Mina pointed out.
