Hi Ferruh, On 28/11/2018 13:33, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 11/28/2018 1:12 PM, Lam, Tiago wrote: >> On 27/11/2018 17:43, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> On 11/20/2018 10:26 AM, Tiago Lam wrote: >>>> Use the underlying MTU to calculate the framsize to be used for the mmap >>>> RINGs. This is to make it more flexible on deployments with different >>>> MTU requirements, instead of using a pre-defined value of 2048B. >>> >>> This behavior change should be documented in af_packet documentation which >>> is >>> missing unfortunately. >>> Would you able to introduce the initial/basic af_packet doc to at least to >>> document device argument? If not please let me know, I can work on it. >>> >> >> Thanks for the review, Ferruh. >> >> Yeah, I don't mind cooking something up and submitting here for review; >> I'll wait a couple of days for a reply from John W. before proceeding, >> though. > > Thanks, appreciated. Agreed to wait a little. > >> >> But given there's no documentation for af_packet yet, do you prefer to >> wait for that to be available, and apply it all together? Or could that >> be applied later as part of another patch? > > Both are OK, depends on your availability. > > I think it is better, to show the history, first patch as the documentation > patch for existing behavior and your patch updating framsz usage (3/3) to > update > that document as well.
As agreed, I just sent a patch with an initial take on adding some docs for af_packet. Once that's in I'll submit another revision of this patchset, including an update to the documentation. Just an aside, patch 1/3 of this series is a bugfix, it could go in irrespective of the documentation, it seems. Tiago.