I have kernel timer which check for flag.
if(flag ) {
igb_down(adapter);
} else {
igb_up(adapter);
}
I could see a kernel crash; because there are a lot of msleep() in
igb_down function.
#define msleep(x)do { set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); \
>-Original Message-
>From: Lars Maschke [mailto:m...@lars-maschke.de]
>Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 3:11 PM
>To: Dave, Tushar N
>Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>Subject: Re-2: e1000e detected hardware unit hang problem
>
>Hello Tushar,
>
>first of all. Thanks for Your quick reply.
>
On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:27:37 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:29:01AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > > They are in my queue of e100
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:13:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I suspected that during resume from hibernation the boot kernel (the
> one that loaded the image) did something to hardware and the restored
> kernel didn't handle that change properly. It is hard do say what
> piece of hardware t
On 03/05/2013 11:55 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ben Hutchings
> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:43:01 +
>
>> In general it appears to require a run-time check. You might need to
>> augment .
>
> On the other hand, unlike get_cycles, sched_clock() is always available.
>
On the gripping hand,
From: Eliezer Tamir
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:15:26 +0200
> We are not very sensitive to this setting, anything on the order of
> your half round time trip plus a few standard deviations works well.
> We are busy waiting, so setting a higher value does not change the
> results much.
This makes t
From: Ben Hutchings
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:43:01 +
> In general it appears to require a run-time check. You might need to
> augment .
On the other hand, unlike get_cycles, sched_clock() is always available.
--
Ev
> -Original Message-
> From: Skidmore, Donald C [mailto:donald.c.skidm...@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:00 AM
> To: K, Narendra; e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Cc: Rose, Charles
> Subject: RE: [E1000-devel] ixgbe - lan id needs to be set after the port swap
> check ?
>
On 05/03/2013 18:43, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 09:55 -0800, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
>
> Should the units really be cycles or, say, microseconds? I assume that
> a sysctl setter can do a conversion to cycles so that there's no need to
> multiply every time the value is used. (If th
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 17:28 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 17:26 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 09:56 -0800, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> > > Add the ixgbe driver code implementing ndo_ll_poll.
> > > It should be easy for other drivers to do something similar
>
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 17:26 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 09:56 -0800, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> > Add the ixgbe driver code implementing ndo_ll_poll.
> > It should be easy for other drivers to do something similar
> > in order to enable support for CONFIG_INET_LL_RX_POLL
>
> Ye
On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 09:56 -0800, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> Add the ixgbe driver code implementing ndo_ll_poll.
> It should be easy for other drivers to do something similar
> in order to enable support for CONFIG_INET_LL_RX_POLL
Yes... in fact I wonder whether the lock and state couldn't be added t
On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 09:56 -0800, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> an example of how one could add support for ndo_ll_poll to TCP.
[...]
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> @@ -279,6 +279,7 @@
>
> #include
> #include
> +#include
>
> int sysctl_tcp_fin_timeout __read_mostly = TCP_FIN_TI
On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 09:55 -0800, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> Adds a new ndo_ll_poll method and the code that supports and uses it.
> This method can be used by low latency applications to busy poll ethernet
> device queues directly from the socket code. The ip_low_latency_poll sysctl
> entry controls
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:33:45AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> Would you like me to add your Tested-by: to the patches?
Sure, if you'd like to:
Tested-by: Borislav Petkov
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 12:27 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:29:01AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > > They are in my queue of e1000e p
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:29:01AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > They are in my queue of e1000e patches for net and are being testing
> > > currently. I should be ab
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > They are in my queue of e1000e patches for net and are being testing
> > currently. I should be able to push them upstream this week.
>
> Right, if you'd like me to run
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> They are in my queue of e1000e patches for net and are being testing
> currently. I should be able to push them upstream this week.
Right, if you'd like me to run them here too, let me know.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Se
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 10:42 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 01:16 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > [+cc e1000-devel, Jeff, Bruce]
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:16:41AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>> So it looks Bjorn has t
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 10:58 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:42:17AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 03/05/2013 01:16 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > [+cc e1000-devel, Jeff, Bruce]
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/05/2013 11:01 AM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 10:42 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> The e1000e changes didn't get merged, did they? I don't see
>>> the following changes mentioned at
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/4/185 in 3.9-rc1
On 03/05/2013 10:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Rafael, what's the state of those patches here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/4/185, are they ready to be tested or you
> still have issues with them?
Note there is a resend version:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/25/3
with a note from Jeff Kirsher:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:42:17AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 01:16 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > [+cc e1000-devel, Jeff, Bruce]
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:16:41AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>> So it looks Bjor
On 03/05/2013 01:16 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc e1000-devel, Jeff, Bruce]
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:16:41AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> So it looks Bjorn has taken most of them and the e1000e one will go
>>> through the e100
25 matches
Mail list logo
