Sven Eckelmann <se@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for submitting the patch.
>
> On Wednesday, 6 November 2024 13:41:44 CET Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Since this is based on ideas by all three people, but not actually
>> directly derived from any of the patches, I'm including Suggested-by
>> tags from Simon, Sven and Felix below, which should hopefully serve as
>> proper credit.
>
> At least for me, this is more than enough. Thanks.
>
> I don't have the setup at the moment to test it again - maybe Issam can do
> this. One concern I would have (because I don't find the notes regarding this
> problem), is whether this check is now breaking because we count more things.
> In the past, rxlp/rxok was used for the check. And now I don't know whether
> the count for the other ones were still increasing.
>
> * RXHP (rather sure that "high priority frame" wasn't increasing)
> * RXEOL ("no RX descriptors available" - I would guess no, but I can't say for
> sure)
> * RXORN ("FIFO overrun" I would guess no, but I can't say for sure)
>
> Reviewed-by: Sven Eckelmann <se@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Great, thanks for the review! I'll let it sit in patchwork for a little
while to give people a chance to test it out before sending it over to
Kalle to be applied :)
-Toke
