| Message ID | 1322912671-6903-2-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 03:44:26 -0800 > + if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) && Excessive parenthesis, please remove. > + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1; This variable is a bool, set it to true or false. > + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; Likewise. > + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; Likewise. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:26 -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 03:44:26 -0800 > > > + if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) && > > Excessive parenthesis, please remove. > > > + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1; > > This variable is a bool, set it to true or false. > > > + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; > > Likewise. > > > + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; > > Likewise. Michael/Flavio - To expedite this patch, I can make the changes that Dave is requesting and re-submit v2 of the patch, if that is ok with you. -Jeff
On 12/04/2011 03:28 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:26 -0800, David Miller wrote: >> From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> >> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 03:44:26 -0800 >> >>> + if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) && >> >> Excessive parenthesis, please remove. >> >>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1; >> >> This variable is a bool, set it to true or false. >> >>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; >> >> Likewise. >> >>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; >> >> Likewise. > > Michael/Flavio - > > To expedite this patch, I can make the changes that Dave is requesting > and re-submit v2 of the patch, if that is ok with you. > Hi, Jeff That's ok for me, I think it's good if you can work with Dave and make out a final version for us, if you want my help, please mail me at any time, I'm glad to work with you. Flavio: What's your opinion? Thanks, Michael Wang > -Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 17:05 -0800, Michael Wang wrote: > On 12/04/2011 03:28 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:26 -0800, David Miller wrote: > >> From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > >> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 03:44:26 -0800 > >> > >>> + if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) && > >> > >> Excessive parenthesis, please remove. > >> > >>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1; > >> > >> This variable is a bool, set it to true or false. > >> > >>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; > >> > >> Likewise. > >> > >>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; > >> > >> Likewise. > > > > Michael/Flavio - > > > > To expedite this patch, I can make the changes that Dave is requesting > > and re-submit v2 of the patch, if that is ok with you. > > > > Hi, Jeff > > That's ok for me, I think it's good if you can work with Dave and make > out a final version for us, if you want my help, please mail me at any > time, I'm glad to work with you. > > Flavio: > What's your opinion? > > Thanks, > Michael Wang I have the patch read to push, so I will go ahead an push v2 out tonight. Since I am making changes to your patch, I will be removing your signed-off-by (and Flavio's) and keep you as a CC: so that you can verify the changes I have made to resolve the issues that Dave saw. Cheers, Jeff
On 12/05/2011 02:25 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 17:05 -0800, Michael Wang wrote: >> On 12/04/2011 03:28 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:26 -0800, David Miller wrote: >>>> From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> >>>> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 03:44:26 -0800 >>>> >>>>> + if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) && >>>> >>>> Excessive parenthesis, please remove. >>>> >>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1; >>>> >>>> This variable is a bool, set it to true or false. >>>> >>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; >>>> >>>> Likewise. >>>> >>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; >>>> >>>> Likewise. >>> >>> Michael/Flavio - >>> >>> To expedite this patch, I can make the changes that Dave is requesting >>> and re-submit v2 of the patch, if that is ok with you. >>> >> >> Hi, Jeff >> >> That's ok for me, I think it's good if you can work with Dave and make >> out a final version for us, if you want my help, please mail me at any >> time, I'm glad to work with you. >> >> Flavio: >> What's your opinion? >> >> Thanks, >> Michael Wang > > I have the patch read to push, so I will go ahead an push v2 out > tonight. Since I am making changes to your patch, I will be removing > your signed-off-by (and Flavio's) and keep you as a CC: so that you can > verify the changes I have made to resolve the issues that Dave saw. > Hi, Jeff Is that means you have a better patch which different from ours, and you will use your patch to instead of ours? Because David is just ask for some small change, I think your time zone may be better to work with him, so I ask for your help. I was just confused that why our signed-off-by should be removed? Thanks, Michael Wang > Cheers, > Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 23:15 -0800, Michael Wang wrote: > On 12/05/2011 02:25 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 17:05 -0800, Michael Wang wrote: > >> On 12/04/2011 03:28 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > >> > >>> On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:26 -0800, David Miller wrote: > >>>> From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > >>>> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 03:44:26 -0800 > >>>> > >>>>> + if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) && > >>>> > >>>> Excessive parenthesis, please remove. > >>>> > >>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1; > >>>> > >>>> This variable is a bool, set it to true or false. > >>>> > >>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; > >>>> > >>>> Likewise. > >>>> > >>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; > >>>> > >>>> Likewise. > >>> > >>> Michael/Flavio - > >>> > >>> To expedite this patch, I can make the changes that Dave is requesting > >>> and re-submit v2 of the patch, if that is ok with you. > >>> > >> > >> Hi, Jeff > >> > >> That's ok for me, I think it's good if you can work with Dave and make > >> out a final version for us, if you want my help, please mail me at any > >> time, I'm glad to work with you. > >> > >> Flavio: > >> What's your opinion? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Michael Wang > > > > I have the patch read to push, so I will go ahead an push v2 out > > tonight. Since I am making changes to your patch, I will be removing > > your signed-off-by (and Flavio's) and keep you as a CC: so that you can > > verify the changes I have made to resolve the issues that Dave saw. > > > > Hi, Jeff > > Is that means you have a better patch which different from ours, and you > will use your patch to instead of ours? > > Because David is just ask for some small change, I think your time zone > may be better to work with him, so I ask for your help. > > I was just confused that why our signed-off-by should be removed? > > Thanks, > Michael Wang > > > Cheers, > > Jeff It is your patch (your original work) but since I have made changes to your patch, I (or anyone for that matter) should not assume that you as the owner would signed off on the changes that I have made based on feedback. It would not be right for me to send out a patch with your signed-off-by which is different from what you originally submitted, without your ok. Once I send out the v2 of the patch, please feel free to add your signed-off-by OR acked-by to the patch. While I personally do not have a problem keeping you as the owner and your signed-off-by, I believe that takes in several assumptions which only you as the owner should speak for. I am not trying to take ownership for stats purposes, I care less about the number of patches I create and own and would rather make sure that the original owners get the credit due for the work they did. So with that, when I send out my next series of patches please feel free to ACK or Sign-off on the changes made. I just wanted to make sure that we get these changes in soon (with out delay). I can wait if you want to keep ownership of the patch, I just wanted to ensure that we get your patch included as soon as possible based on the problem it fixes.
On 12/05/2011 04:02 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 23:15 -0800, Michael Wang wrote: >> On 12/05/2011 02:25 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 17:05 -0800, Michael Wang wrote: >>>> On 12/04/2011 03:28 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:26 -0800, David Miller wrote: >>>>>> From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> >>>>>> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 03:44:26 -0800 >>>>>> >>>>>>> + if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) && >>>>>> >>>>>> Excessive parenthesis, please remove. >>>>>> >>>>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1; >>>>>> >>>>>> This variable is a bool, set it to true or false. >>>>>> >>>>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; >>>>>> >>>>>> Likewise. >>>>>> >>>>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; >>>>>> >>>>>> Likewise. >>>>> >>>>> Michael/Flavio - >>>>> >>>>> To expedite this patch, I can make the changes that Dave is requesting >>>>> and re-submit v2 of the patch, if that is ok with you. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, Jeff >>>> >>>> That's ok for me, I think it's good if you can work with Dave and make >>>> out a final version for us, if you want my help, please mail me at any >>>> time, I'm glad to work with you. >>>> >>>> Flavio: >>>> What's your opinion? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Michael Wang >>> >>> I have the patch read to push, so I will go ahead an push v2 out >>> tonight. Since I am making changes to your patch, I will be removing >>> your signed-off-by (and Flavio's) and keep you as a CC: so that you can >>> verify the changes I have made to resolve the issues that Dave saw. >>> >> >> Hi, Jeff >> >> Is that means you have a better patch which different from ours, and you >> will use your patch to instead of ours? >> >> Because David is just ask for some small change, I think your time zone >> may be better to work with him, so I ask for your help. >> >> I was just confused that why our signed-off-by should be removed? >> >> Thanks, >> Michael Wang >> >>> Cheers, >>> Jeff > > It is your patch (your original work) but since I have made changes to > your patch, I (or anyone for that matter) should not assume that you as > the owner would signed off on the changes that I have made based on > feedback. It would not be right for me to send out a patch with your > signed-off-by which is different from what you originally submitted, > without your ok. Once I send out the v2 of the patch, please feel free > to add your signed-off-by OR acked-by to the patch. > Hi, Jeff That make sense, I'm sorry but because I'm new to the community, and I just want to make every thing clear so I can do better in the future. > While I personally do not have a problem keeping you as the owner and > your signed-off-by, I believe that takes in several assumptions which > only you as the owner should speak for. I am not trying to take > ownership for stats purposes, I care less about the number of patches I > create and own and would rather make sure that the original owners get > the credit due for the work they did. > I'm so sorry and I regret if I make you unhappy by some wrong word, please forgive me. > So with that, when I send out my next series of patches please feel free > to ACK or Sign-off on the changes made. I just wanted to make sure that > we get these changes in soon (with out delay). > > I can wait if you want to keep ownership of the patch, I just wanted to > ensure that we get your patch included as soon as possible based on the > problem it fixes. Please help us to make the patch perfect, and I'm very glad if I can have the opportunity to work with you. Thanks & Best regards Michael Wang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 00:18 -0800, Michael Wang wrote: > On 12/05/2011 04:02 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 23:15 -0800, Michael Wang wrote: > >> On 12/05/2011 02:25 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > >> > >>> On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 17:05 -0800, Michael Wang wrote: > >>>> On 12/04/2011 03:28 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 19:26 -0800, David Miller wrote: > >>>>>> From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> > >>>>>> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 03:44:26 -0800 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> + if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) && > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Excessive parenthesis, please remove. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This variable is a bool, set it to true or false. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Likewise. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Likewise. > >>>>> > >>>>> Michael/Flavio - > >>>>> > >>>>> To expedite this patch, I can make the changes that Dave is requesting > >>>>> and re-submit v2 of the patch, if that is ok with you. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi, Jeff > >>>> > >>>> That's ok for me, I think it's good if you can work with Dave and make > >>>> out a final version for us, if you want my help, please mail me at any > >>>> time, I'm glad to work with you. > >>>> > >>>> Flavio: > >>>> What's your opinion? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Michael Wang > >>> > >>> I have the patch read to push, so I will go ahead an push v2 out > >>> tonight. Since I am making changes to your patch, I will be removing > >>> your signed-off-by (and Flavio's) and keep you as a CC: so that you can > >>> verify the changes I have made to resolve the issues that Dave saw. > >>> > >> > >> Hi, Jeff > >> > >> Is that means you have a better patch which different from ours, and you > >> will use your patch to instead of ours? > >> > >> Because David is just ask for some small change, I think your time zone > >> may be better to work with him, so I ask for your help. > >> > >> I was just confused that why our signed-off-by should be removed? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Michael Wang > >> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Jeff > > > > It is your patch (your original work) but since I have made changes to > > your patch, I (or anyone for that matter) should not assume that you as > > the owner would signed off on the changes that I have made based on > > feedback. It would not be right for me to send out a patch with your > > signed-off-by which is different from what you originally submitted, > > without your ok. Once I send out the v2 of the patch, please feel free > > to add your signed-off-by OR acked-by to the patch. > > > > Hi, Jeff > > That make sense, I'm sorry but because I'm new to the community, and I > just want to make every thing clear so I can do better in the future. No problem, just trying to help get your work/fix upstream. > > > While I personally do not have a problem keeping you as the owner and > > your signed-off-by, I believe that takes in several assumptions which > > only you as the owner should speak for. I am not trying to take > > ownership for stats purposes, I care less about the number of patches I > > create and own and would rather make sure that the original owners get > > the credit due for the work they did. > > > > > I'm so sorry and I regret if I make you unhappy by some wrong word, > please forgive me. Not at all, you have not made me unhappy, so no need to apologize. I am just sorry if my email came across frustrated or unhappy. > > > So with that, when I send out my next series of patches please feel free > > to ACK or Sign-off on the changes made. I just wanted to make sure that > > we get these changes in soon (with out delay). > > > > I can wait if you want to keep ownership of the patch, I just wanted to > > ensure that we get your patch included as soon as possible based on the > > problem it fixes. > > Please help us to make the patch perfect, and I'm very glad if I can > have the opportunity to work with you. I am always here to help and welcome any submissions you want to provide to make our Intel drivers better. Thank you! > > Thanks & Best regards > Michael Wang >
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/e1000.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/e1000.h index 9fe18d1..f478a22 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/e1000.h +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/e1000.h @@ -309,6 +309,7 @@ struct e1000_adapter { u32 txd_cmd; bool detect_tx_hung; + bool tx_hang_recheck; u8 tx_timeout_factor; u32 tx_int_delay; diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c index c6e9763..3c12e6a 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static void e1000_print_hw_hang(struct work_struct *work) struct e1000_adapter *adapter = container_of(work, struct e1000_adapter, print_hang_task); + struct net_device *netdev = adapter->netdev; struct e1000_ring *tx_ring = adapter->tx_ring; unsigned int i = tx_ring->next_to_clean; unsigned int eop = tx_ring->buffer_info[i].next_to_watch; @@ -1025,6 +1026,21 @@ static void e1000_print_hw_hang(struct work_struct *work) if (test_bit(__E1000_DOWN, &adapter->state)) return; + if ((!adapter->tx_hang_recheck) && + (adapter->flags2 & FLAG2_DMA_BURST)) { + /* May be block on write-back, flush and detect again + * flush pending descriptor writebacks to memory + */ + ew32(TIDV, adapter->tx_int_delay | E1000_TIDV_FPD); + /* execute the writes immediately */ + e1e_flush(); + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 1; + return; + } + /* Real hang detected */ + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; + netif_stop_queue(netdev); + e1e_rphy(hw, PHY_STATUS, &phy_status); e1e_rphy(hw, PHY_1000T_STATUS, &phy_1000t_status); e1e_rphy(hw, PHY_EXT_STATUS, &phy_ext_status); @@ -1145,10 +1161,10 @@ static bool e1000_clean_tx_irq(struct e1000_adapter *adapter) if (tx_ring->buffer_info[i].time_stamp && time_after(jiffies, tx_ring->buffer_info[i].time_stamp + (adapter->tx_timeout_factor * HZ)) && - !(er32(STATUS) & E1000_STATUS_TXOFF)) { + !(er32(STATUS) & E1000_STATUS_TXOFF)) schedule_work(&adapter->print_hang_task); - netif_stop_queue(netdev); - } + else + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; } adapter->total_tx_bytes += total_tx_bytes; adapter->total_tx_packets += total_tx_packets; @@ -3838,6 +3854,7 @@ static int e1000_open(struct net_device *netdev) e1000_irq_enable(adapter); + adapter->tx_hang_recheck = 0; netif_start_queue(netdev); adapter->idle_check = true;