[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191214071907.GA2925@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:19:07 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@...e.de>,
maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: marvell: mvpp2: phylink requires the link interrupt
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 04:34:03PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 22:33:05 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > phylink requires the MAC to report when its link status changes when
> > operating in inband modes. Failure to report link status changes
> > means that phylink has no idea when the link events happen, which
> > results in either the network interface's carrier remaining up or
> > remaining permanently down.
> >
> > For example, with a fiber module, if the interface is brought up and
> > link is initially established, taking the link down at the far end
> > will cut the optical power. The SFP module's LOS asserts, we
> > deactivate the link, and the network interface reports no carrier.
> >
> > When the far end is brought back up, the SFP module's LOS deasserts,
> > but the MAC may be slower to establish link. If this happens (which
> > in my tests is a certainty) then phylink never hears that the MAC
> > has established link with the far end, and the network interface is
> > stuck reporting no carrier. This means the interface is
> > non-functional.
> >
> > Avoiding the link interrupt when we have phylink is basically not
> > an option, so remove the !port->phylink from the test.
> >
> > Tested-by: Sven Auhagen <sven.auhagen@...eatech.de>
> > Tested-by: Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
>
> Fixes: 4bb043262878 ("net: mvpp2: phylink support") ?
>
> Seems like you maybe didn't want this backported to stable hence
> no fixes tag?
>
> Please advise :)
Speaking for myself, I'd very much like to get it into stable in order
to avoid having to keep this local patch on top of latest stable!
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists