Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:32:10 -0800 (PST) | From | Hisashi T Fujinaka <> | Subject | Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr |
| |
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
>> Incidentally we're just looking for a solution to that problem too. >> Do three patches to fix the same problem at rougly the same time already >> qualify as freak accident? >> >> FTR, I attached my current patch, which I was planning to submit after >> some external testing. >> >> However, all three patches have one thing in common: They workaround >> a somewhat dubious resetting of the hardware address to NULL in case >> reading from a register failed. >> >> That makes me wonder if setting the hardware address to NULL in >> rd32/igb_rd32 is really such a good idea. It's performed in a function >> which return value is *never* tested for validity in the calling >> functions and leads to subsequent crashes since no tests for hw_addr == >> NULL are performed. >> >> Maybe commit 22a8b2915 should be reconsidered? Isn't there some more >> graceful way to handle the "surprise removal"? > > Answering this from my home account because, well, work is Outlook. > > "Reconsidering" would be great. In fact, revert if if you'd like. I'm > uncertain that the surprise removal code actually works the way I > thought previously and I think I took a lot of it out of my local code. > > Unfortuantely I don't have any equipment that I can use to reproduce > surprise removal any longer so that means I wouldn't be able to test > anything. I have to defer to you or Cao Jin.
Whoops. Never mind. I was just told that I had a bug that Alex Duyck and Cao Jin just fixed. I'd stick to listening to Alex.
-- Hisashi T Fujinaka - htodd@twofifty.com
| |