[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2d02ebc-5cde-3893-3915-044d228af7a0@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:55:02 +0100
From: Gabriel C <nix.or.die@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: "rwarsow@....de" <rwarsow@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression in e1000e since Kernel 4.14.3
On 05.12.2017 10:23, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:16:03AM +0100, Gabriel C wrote:
>> On 05.12.2017 09:53, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:20:33AM +0100, Gabriel C wrote:
>>>> On 05.12.2017 07:19, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:18:34AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:47:10AM +0100, Gabriel C wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04.12.2017 23:10, rwarsow@....de wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hallo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> someone and I got an regression with e1000e since kernel 4.14.3 and it seems there is 4.14.4 on the way without a fix.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bug report is here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198047
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ( added stable and netdev to CC )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes I have a box with e1000e and it seems something at least breaks NM after 4.14.3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, can people try 4.14.5-rc1? It should be resolved there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oops, that would be 4.14.4-rc1. Any why do you say above that is on the
>>>>> way without a fix, did you test it?
>>>>
>>>> I didn't tested 4.14.4-rc1 but somone from the bug report tested it and told is not resolved.
>>>>
>>>> I'll fire up an build in a bit and let you know.
>>>
>>> Great, and maybe cc: the developers and mailing list for this driver at
>>> the same time? :)
>>>
>>
>> Greg,
>>
>> last time I reported something about e100* someone told me to just CC netdev =)
>>
>> However the issue still remains with 4.14.4-rc1 and NM , and is still fine with connman.
>>
>> I don't even think is something about the driver itself because I've quick compiled the out-of-tree-e1000e
>> and breaks with NM in the same way. ( which should not be possible ? )
>>
>> Even when 4.14.3 was biggiSH :) after a quick scan and assuming the e1000e patches are fine , remaining candidates
>> should be the IRQ* and x86/* ones ?
>
> I am not assuming the e1000e patches are all fine :)
>
> Any chance you can do a 'git bisect' between 4.14.2 and 4.14.3 to find
> the offending patch?
>
I can but I'm not sure I can do that today , the box is my working box and can't take it down right now.
Maybe I can do that tonight depending on how tired I am :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists