lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out systim sanitization
Date
> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@lists.osuosl.org] On
> Behalf Of Jarod Wilson
> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 6:32 PM
> To: Avargil, Raanan <raanan.avargil@intel.com>
> Cc: Hall, Christopher S <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out
> systim sanitization
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:01:55AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:09:13PM +0000, Avargil, Raanan wrote:
> > >> This is prepatory work for an expanding list of adapter families that have
> occasional ~10 hour clock jumps when being used for PTP. Factor out the
> sanitization function and convert to using a feature (bug) flag, per suggestion
> from Jesse Brandeburg.
> > >>
> > >> Littering functional code with device-specific checks is much messier
> than simply checking a flag, and having device-specific init set flags as
> needed.
> > >> There are probably a number of other cases in the e1000e code that
> could/should be converted similarly.
> > >
> > > Looks ok to me.
> > > Adding Chris who asked what happens if we reach the max retry counter
> (E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREAD)?
> > > This counter is set to 50.
> > > Can you, for testing purposes, decreased this value (or even set it to 0)
> and see what happens?
> >
> > Unfortunately, I don't have direct access to the affected hardware myself,
> > so I'd have to prep a test build, hand it off to someone and play relay. I
> > could do that, but it'd have some lag and possible multiple round-trips...
> > Anyone inside Intel have hardware handy to test on? :p
>
> Was tied up with other work the middle of last week, then on vacation for
> a bit. There was some testing feedback provided from someone at neither
> Red Hat or Intel, but I'm not sure where it leaves us right now. What
> needs to happen next?

Probably nothing else needs to be done on your end. I was out for the last week and a half and am now running the patches through a series of regression test covering a fair number of the different e1000e parts. I will also try to duplicate Tim Woodford' success on a NUC with an i218 in my lab. Assuming nothing jumps out at me I'll probably give it a tested-by later this week so that Jeff can push it on up.

>
> --
> Jarod Wilson
> jarod@redhat.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-wired-lan mailing list
> Intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org
> http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-08-02 13:01    [W:0.052 / U:1.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site