On 12/2/2016 7:02 PM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
> Hello Sasha,
>
> Were you able to reproduce this issue?
>
> Do you have a patch fixing the close function inconsistencies that you
> mentioned which I could try out?
>
> Thanks,
> Tyler
>
> On 11/21/2016 1:40 PM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
>> On
On 12/2/2016 7:02 PM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
> Hello Sasha,
>
> Were you able to reproduce this issue?
>
> Do you have a patch fixing the close function inconsistencies that you
> mentioned which I could try out?
>
> Thanks,
> Tyler
>
> On 11/21/2016 1:40 PM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
>> On
Hello Sasha,
Were you able to reproduce this issue?
Do you have a patch fixing the close function inconsistencies that you
mentioned which I could try out?
Thanks,
Tyler
On 11/21/2016 1:40 PM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
On 11/17/2016 6:31 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin,
Hello Sasha,
Were you able to reproduce this issue?
Do you have a patch fixing the close function inconsistencies that you
mentioned which I could try out?
Thanks,
Tyler
On 11/21/2016 1:40 PM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
On 11/17/2016 6:31 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin,
On 11/17/2016 6:31 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/11/2016 12:35 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Hello Sasha,
On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of
On 11/17/2016 6:31 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/11/2016 12:35 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Hello Sasha,
On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of
On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 12:35 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
>> Hello Sasha,
>>
>> On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of the
__E1000_DOWN bit.
On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 12:35 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
>> Hello Sasha,
>>
>> On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of the
__E1000_DOWN bit.
net...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; ok...@codeaurora.org;
> ti...@codeaurora.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2] e1000e: free IRQ regardless of
> __E1000_DOWN
>
> On 11/13/2016 2:25 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
>> On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin, Sas
eaurora.org;
> ti...@codeaurora.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2] e1000e: free IRQ regardless of
> __E1000_DOWN
>
> On 11/13/2016 2:25 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
>> On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2016 12:35 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
&
On 11/13/2016 2:25 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/11/2016 12:35 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Hello Sasha,
On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of
On 11/13/2016 2:25 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/11/2016 12:35 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Hello Sasha,
On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of
On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 12:35 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
>> Hello Sasha,
>>
>> On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of the
__E1000_DOWN bit.
On 11/13/2016 10:34 AM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 12:35 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
>> Hello Sasha,
>>
>> On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of the
__E1000_DOWN bit.
On 11/11/2016 12:35 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
> Hello Sasha,
>
> On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
>> On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
>>> Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of the
>>> __E1000_DOWN bit. Currently the e1000e driver only releases its IRQ
>>> if
On 11/11/2016 12:35 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
> Hello Sasha,
>
> On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
>> On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
>>> Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of the
>>> __E1000_DOWN bit. Currently the e1000e driver only releases its IRQ
>>> if
Hello Sasha,
On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of the
__E1000_DOWN bit. Currently the e1000e driver only releases its IRQ
if the __E1000_DOWN bit is cleared. This is not sufficient because
Hello Sasha,
On 11/9/2016 11:19 PM, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of the
__E1000_DOWN bit. Currently the e1000e driver only releases its IRQ
if the __E1000_DOWN bit is cleared. This is not sufficient because
On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
> Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of the
> __E1000_DOWN bit. Currently the e1000e driver only releases its IRQ
> if the __E1000_DOWN bit is cleared. This is not sufficient because
> it is possible for __E1000_DOWN to be set without
On 11/9/2016 11:41 PM, Tyler Baicar wrote:
> Move IRQ free code so that it will happen regardless of the
> __E1000_DOWN bit. Currently the e1000e driver only releases its IRQ
> if the __E1000_DOWN bit is cleared. This is not sufficient because
> it is possible for __E1000_DOWN to be set without
20 matches
Mail list logo
