From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756767AbcG0PCF (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:02:05 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:37558 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755978AbcG0PCC (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:02:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:01:55 -0400 From: Jarod Wilson To: "Avargil, Raanan" Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Hall, Christopher S" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org" Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out systim sanitization Message-ID: <20160727150155.GF36313@redhat.com> References: <1469292274-59237-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> <1469557535-63429-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> <1469557535-63429-2-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> <8F4C390AFA9F4444A4AA77F4A3BEC78A190E7843@HASMSX110.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8F4C390AFA9F4444A4AA77F4A3BEC78A190E7843@HASMSX110.ger.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:09:13PM +0000, Avargil, Raanan wrote: >> This is prepatory work for an expanding list of adapter families that have occasional ~10 hour clock jumps when being used for PTP. Factor out the sanitization function and convert to using a feature (bug) flag, per suggestion from Jesse Brandeburg. >> >> Littering functional code with device-specific checks is much messier than simply checking a flag, and having device-specific init set flags as needed. >> There are probably a number of other cases in the e1000e code that could/should be converted similarly. > > Looks ok to me. > Adding Chris who asked what happens if we reach the max retry counter (E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREAD)? > This counter is set to 50. > Can you, for testing purposes, decreased this value (or even set it to 0) and see what happens? Unfortunately, I don't have direct access to the affected hardware myself, so I'd have to prep a test build, hand it off to someone and play relay. I could do that, but it'd have some lag and possible multiple round-trips... Anyone inside Intel have hardware handy to test on? :p -- Jarod Wilson jarod@redhat.com