lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:50:57 +0100 From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: Steffen Klassert <klassert@...hematik.tu-chemnitz.de>, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: bonding with 3c59x driver Hi Eric, Steffen, On Tuesday 14 February 2012 12:13:37 pm Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le mardi 14 février 2012 à 12:06 +0100, Steffen Klassert a écrit : > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:22:10AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Well I am still curious why the 3c59x driver has such slow > > > polling when other drivers I have been testing are able to report > > > almost instantly when I remove a network cable. Could it be that > > > other network chips generate an interrupt on cable removal and > > > the 3com chips do not? > > > > Yes, at least some of the supported chips do not generate an > > interrupt on cable removal, so we have to check for this with a > > timer. Too bad. I confirm I can't see the interrupt count increase when I remove the network cable from my 3C905C (nor when I plug it back in), but I was hopping this was a matter of enabling this event as an interrupt source in the driver. If the hardware just can't do it then this is hopeless. Back in the days I used to consider the 3C905 as the best fast Ethernet cards around, apparently I was horribly wrong. Thanks for explaining anyway. > We could have a 5 sec timer in case device is a slave. > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/3com/3c59x.c > b/drivers/net/ethernet/3com/3c59x.c index 1282f04..e463d10 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/3com/3c59x.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/3com/3c59x.c > @@ -1841,7 +1841,7 @@ vortex_timer(unsigned long data) > ok = 1; > } > > - if (!netif_carrier_ok(dev)) > + if (dev->flags & IFF_SLAVE || !netif_carrier_ok(dev)) > next_tick = 5*HZ; > > if (vp->medialock) Yes I think this makes a lot of sense. If you send this upstream you can add: Acked-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists