Fix ixgbe flow control autoneg reporting

[smh]

Summary

Fix ixgbe reporting of flow control autoneg when running under DBG 1

[jeffrey.e.pieper_intel.com]

We need to be careful here, as this is shared code. Our Linux drivers use this as well.

[sbruno]

In D5089#108263, @jeffrey.e.pieper_intel.com wrote:

We need to be careful here, as this is shared code. Our Linux drivers use this as well.

We can trivially wrap this in a #ifdef FreeBSD

How's that sound?

[smh]

In D5089#108263, @jeffrey.e.pieper_intel.com wrote:

We need to be careful here, as this is shared code. Our Linux drivers use this as well.

The fix should be relevant to all versions, currently its printing out unsupported even when it is actually supported, so shouldn't be a problem?

[jeffrey.e.pieper_intel.com]

Well Linux changes FC settings through ethtool, so maybe that makes a difference. I'm pretty sure FC in the Linux driver works as expected. I was saying we need to be careful when changing shared code because as it may not get accepted when it goes though our code review internally. Eric may have a different opinion, although Sean's suggestion seems fine to me.

[smh]

In D5089#108282, @jeffrey.e.pieper_intel.com wrote:

Well Linux changes FC settings through ethtool, so maybe that makes a difference. I'm pretty sure FC in the Linux driver works as expected. I was saying we need to be careful when changing shared code because as it may not get accepted when it goes though our code review internally. Eric may have a different opinion, although Sean's suggestion seems fine to me.

I think there may be a miss-understanding here, this is purely related to the debug output the results of ixgbe_device_supports_autoneg_fc reporting when it shouldn't.

This function specifically calculates if FC autoneg is supported and stores that in the supported var which is returned, the debug output wasn't checking the result of the calculation instead always saying it was unsupported which is incorrect.

The fix is to only output the unsupported message if supported is false.

Does that make more sense?

[erj]

It looks like this does legitimately fix a bug; @jeffrey.e.pieper_intel.com we can work on getting this fixed internally.