| Message ID | 20200917053035.1889989-3-mk@semihalf.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Ferruh Yigit |
| Headers | show |
| Series |
|
| Related | show |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ci/checkpatch | warning | coding style issues |
diff --git a/drivers/net/ena/base/ena_plat_dpdk.h b/drivers/net/ena/base/ena_plat_dpdk.h index ba7a098f59..d9b728c4d6 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ena/base/ena_plat_dpdk.h +++ b/drivers/net/ena/base/ena_plat_dpdk.h @@ -56,8 +56,8 @@ typedef uint64_t dma_addr_t; #define ENA_ABORT() abort() -#define ENA_MSLEEP(x) rte_delay_ms(x) -#define ENA_UDELAY(x) rte_delay_us(x) +#define ENA_MSLEEP(x) rte_delay_us_sleep(x * 1000) +#define ENA_UDELAY(x) rte_delay_us_block(x) #define ENA_TOUCH(x) ((void)(x)) #define memcpy_toio memcpy
ENA_MSLEEP() and ENA_UDELAY() were expecting different behavior - the first one is expecting driver to sleep, while the other, to busy wait. For both cases, the rte_delay_(u|m)s() function was used, which could be either sleep or block, depending on the configuration. To make the macros valid, the operations should be specified directly. Because of that, the rte_delay_us_sleep() and rte_delay_us_block() are now being used. Fixes: 9ba7981ec992 ("ena: add communication layer for DPDK") Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Michal Krawczyk <mk@semihalf.com> Reviewed-by: Igor Chauskin <igorch@amazon.com> Reviewed-by: Guy Tzalik <gtzalik@amazon.com> --- drivers/net/ena/base/ena_plat_dpdk.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)