Hello.
On 12/23/2015 9:46 AM, zyjzyj2...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2...@gmail.com>
>
> In X540 NIC, there is a time span between reporting "link on" and
> getting the speed and duplex. To a bonding driver in 802.3ad mode,
> this time span will make it not work well if the time span is big
> enough. The big time span will make bonding driver change the state of
> the slave device to up while the speed and duplex of the slave device
> can not be gotten. Later the bonding driver will not have change to
> get the speed and duplex of the slave device. The speed and duplex of
> the slave device are important to a bonding driver in 802.3ad mode.
>
> To 82599_SFP NIC and other kinds of NICs, this problem does
> not exist. As such, it is necessary for X540 to report"link on" when
> the link speed is not IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_UNKNOWN.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2...@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
> index aed8d02..cb9d310 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
> @@ -6479,7 +6479,21 @@ static void ixgbe_watchdog_link_is_up(struct
> ixgbe_adapter *adapter)
> (flow_rx ? "RX" :
> (flow_tx ? "TX" : "None"))));
>
> - netif_carrier_on(netdev);
> + /*
> + * In X540 NIC, there is a time span between reporting "link on"
> + * and getting the speed and duplex. To a bonding driver in 802.3ad
> + * mode, this time span will make it not work well if the time span
> + * is big enough. To 82599_SFP NIC and other kinds of NICs, this
> + * problem does not exist. As such, it is better for X540 to report
> + * "link on" when the link speed is not IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_UNKNOWN.
> + */
> + if ((hw->mac.type == ixgbe_mac_X540) &&
> + (link_speed != IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_UNKNOWN)) {
> + netif_carrier_on(netdev);
> + } else {
> + netif_carrier_on(netdev);
> + }
> +
{} not needed here. And you do the same thing regardless of whether your
check succeeds or not, this doesn't make sense.
[...]
MBR, Sergei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
E1000-devel mailing list
E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit
http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
