netdev - RE: [net-next 01/11] ixgbe: fix detection of SFP+ capable interfaces

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:	Wed, 14 May 2014 16:59:56 +0000
From:	"Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
	"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next 01/11] ixgbe: fix detection of SFP+ capable interfaces

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sergei Shtylyov
>[mailto:sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:26 AM
>To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T; davem@...emloft.net
>Cc: Tantilov, Emil S; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
>gospo@...hat.com; sassmann@...hat.com
>Subject: Re: [net-next 01/11] ixgbe: fix detection of SFP+
>capable interfaces
>
>Hello.
>
>On 14-05-2014 12:54, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>
>> From: Emil Tantilov <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
>
>> In cases where the driver is loaded while there are no SFP+ modules in
>> the cage the interface was not being detected as SFP capable. To account
>> for this the driver called identify_sfp in ixgbe_get_settings to make
>> sure the data is correct. However when there is no SFP+ module in the cage
>> the driver waits for the I2C reads to time out which can take more than a
>> second and will cause issues with tools (like net-snmp) that may poll
>> for that information.
>
>> This patch resolves the issue by identifying 82599 based NIC with no PHY
>> type set as SFP capable which allows the driver to detect the SFP module
>> when the interface is brought up. As result of this we can also remove the
>> identify_sfp call from ixgbe_get_settings.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Emil Tantilov <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
>> Tested-by: Phil Schmitt <phillip.j.schmitt@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
>
>[...]
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
>b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
>> index 8089ea9..e44c42a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
>> @@ -4660,6 +4660,10 @@ static inline bool
>ixgbe_is_sfp(struct ixgbe_hw *hw)
>>   	case ixgbe_phy_nl:
>>   		if (hw->mac.type == ixgbe_mac_82598EB)
>>   			return true;
>> +	/* ixgbe_phy_none is set when no SFP module is present
>*/
>> +	case ixgbe_phy_none:
>> +		if (hw->mac.type == ixgbe_mac_82599EB)
>> +			return true;
>
>    Shouldn't it just be combined with the previous case?

How can you combine them? The previous case is for ixgbe_phy_nl and 82598 macs this patch is for ixgbe_phy_none and 82599.

Thanks,
Emil

>
>>   	default:
>>   		return false;
>>   	}
>
>WBR, Sergei

--
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