Hi Jan,
Thank you for the fast answer!
I dont understand exacly , which patch and test from Paul you mean.
Maybe I have take the diff in the wrong direction???? sorry for that!
this are the new lines
< // seq = ++in->master.w1.seq ;
< // seq should not be zero or > 0xFFFF
< seq = NL_SEQ(++in->master.w1.seq);
< if(seq == 0) {
< seq = NL_SEQ(++in->master.w1.seq);
< LEVEL_DEBUG("NETLINK sequence number overrun");
< }
this is what should be replaced
> seq = ++in->master.w1.seq ;
diff -u ow_w1_send.c.orig ow_w1_send.c
--- ow_w1_send.c.orig 2016-02-04 21:09:53.000000000 +0100
+++ ow_w1_send.c 2016-11-08 20:55:51.351153464 +0100
@@ -68,7 +68,13 @@
} else {
// w1 subsidiary bus
// this bus is locked
- seq = ++in->master.w1.seq ;
+ // seq = ++in->master.w1.seq ;
+ // seq should not be zero or > 0xFFFF
+ seq = NL_SEQ(++in->master.w1.seq);
+ if(seq == 0) {
+ seq = NL_SEQ(++in->master.w1.seq);
+ LEVEL_DEBUG("NETLINK sequence number overrun");
+ }
bus = in->master.w1.id;
}
Best regards
eni
On 12.11.2016 22:34, Jan Kandziora wrote:
> Am 12.11.2016 um 19:31 schrieb Enrico Hoepfner:
>> in my opinion there is a bug in ow_w1_send.c - that sequence number for
>> netlink can run over 0xFFFF.
>> this makes the problem that the message which is send (65536 & 0xFFFF),
>> has a different sequence number as the Response is watinting for (65536).
>>
>> I've try the following patch to reset sequence number, when the number
>> is going greater then 0xFFFF - and it is working stable same days (20
>> times sequence number is running over 0xFFFF in this time).
>>
>>
>> test@linux-lbd2:~/owfs/owfs-3.1p4> diff
>> ./module/owlib/src/c/ow_w1_send.c ./module/owlib/src/c/ow_w1_send.c.orig
>> 71,77c71
>> < // seq = ++in->master.w1.seq ;
>> < // seq should not be zero or > 0xFFFF
>> < seq = NL_SEQ(++in->master.w1.seq);
>> < if(seq == 0) {
>> < seq = NL_SEQ(++in->master.w1.seq);
>> < LEVEL_DEBUG("NETLINK sequence number overrun");
>> < }
>> ---
>> > seq = ++in->master.w1.seq ;
>> test@linux-lbd2:~/owfs/owfs-3.1p4>
>>
> Thanks for playing with this.
>
> You are rolling back a previous patch with your patch. There sure had
> been a reason why Paul had inserted that test. We have to find out why.
>
>
> BTW: diff -u is the preferred diff format - everywhere.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jan
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
> Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
> With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
> Training and support from Colfax.
> Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
> _______________________________________________
> Owfs-developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owfs-developers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
_______________________________________________
Owfs-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owfs-developers
