netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] arm64: rockchip: Initial GeekBox enablement

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:20:00 +0100
From:	Giuseppe CAVALLARO <peppe.cavallaro@...com>
To:	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@...euvizoso.net>
CC:	Dinh Nguyen <dinh.linux@...il.com>,
	Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
	Fabrice GASNIER <fabrice.gasnier@...com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
	Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@...glemail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] arm64: rockchip: Initial GeekBox enablement

Hi Tomeu

On 3/14/2016 12:43 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> Hi Peppe,
>
> with that patch I don't see any difference at all in my setup.
>
> So to be clear, with these commits on top of next-20160314, I still
> get the hang during boot:
>
> 209afef6f0cd ARM: dts: rockchip: Add mdio node to ethernet node
> 2315acc6cf7f Revert "stmmac: first frame prep at the end of xmit routine"
> b5e08e810c63 stmmac: fix tx prepare for normal desc
> 37c15a31d850 i2c: immediately mark ourselves as registered
> 4342eec3c5a2 Add linux-next specific files for 20160314
>
> [   27.521026] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at net/sched/sch_generic.c:303
> dev_watchdog+0x284/0x288
> [   27.529460] NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0 (rk_gmac-dwmac): transmit queue 0 timed out

I do not reproduce the WATCHDOG but i am continuing to look at the code
to understand if normal descriptor management is ok or not. I keep you
informed.

Just an info, did you test with 2315acc6cf7f included? Just to
understand if it is introducing a problem. It works in case of
enhanced descriptors are used instead of.

>
> https://git.collabora.com/cgit/user/tomeu/linux.git/log/?h=broken-eth-on-rock2

thx I will take a look at this

Regards
Peppe