[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160727150155.GF36313@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:01:55 -0400
From: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
To: "Avargil, Raanan" <raanan.avargil@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hall, Christopher S" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out
systim sanitization
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
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@...hat.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists