On 6/3/24 3:15 PM, Paul Barker wrote:
[...]
>>>>> @@ -298,13 +269,14 @@ static void ravb_ring_free(struct net_device *ndev, int q)
>>>>> priv->tx_ring[q] = NULL;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> - /* Free RX skb ringbuffer */
>>>>> - if (priv->rx_skb[q]) {
>>>>> - for (i = 0; i < priv->num_rx_ring[q]; i++)
>>>>> - dev_kfree_skb(priv->rx_skb[q][i]);
>>>>> + /* Free RX buffers */
>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < priv->num_rx_ring[q]; i++) {
>>>>> + if (priv->rx_buffers[q][i].page)
>>>>> + page_pool_put_page(priv->rx_pool[q], priv->rx_buffers[q][i].page, 0, true);
>>>>
>>>> nit: Networking still prefers code to be 80 columns wide or less.
>>>> It looks like that can be trivially achieved here.
>>>>
>>>> Flagged by checkpatch.pl --max-line-length=80
>>>
>>> Sergey has asked me to wrap to 100 cols [1]. I can only find a reference
>>> to 80 in the docs though [2], so I guess you may be right.
>>>
>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/611a49b8-ecdb-6b91-9d3e-262bf3851f5b@xxxxxx/
>>> [2]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> If Sergey prefers 100 then I won't argue :)
>>
>> FWIIW, think what has happened here relates to the Kernel, at some point,
>> going from 80 to 100 columns as the preferred maximum width, while Networking
>> stuck with 80.
>
> I saw that netdevbpf patchwork is configured for 80 cols and it has
> warnings for v4 of this patch [1], so I've already re-wrapped the
> changes in this series to 80 cols (excluding a couple of lines where
> using slightly more than 80 cols significantly improves readability).
> I'm planning to send that in the next hour or so, assuming my tests
> pass.
>
> [1]: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20240528150339.6791-8-paul.barker.ct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Sorry for misinforming you about 100 coulmns -- I had no idea netdev stuck
to 80! :-)
MBR, Sergey
