From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Altenberg Subject: RE: c_can: TX handling Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:56:41 +0100 Message-ID: <1300964201.3295.16.camel@localhost> References: <16a340801622a96218c76dbbabc7a23f.squirrel@www.linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "wg@grandegger.com" , "kurt.van.dijck@eia.be" , "b.spranger@linutronix.de" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , jan@linutronix.de To: Bhupesh SHARMA Return-path: Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:39819 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754961Ab1CXKCf (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 06:02:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, > Thanks for your work on c_can. > This week has been very busy for me, so please excuse me for the late reply. No problem. > Just to better understand this can you send me your *candump* output > when you see that the message object put earlier in the message RAM > being pending on the line. > > Your point seems valid but I want to make sure that this is not done by the > C_CAN core implicitly.. I'll try to prepare a (stripped down) test-case, but since I'm quite busy at the moment, that might take a couple of days. I'm quite sure, I've seen such a situation, but first of all, I'd like to sort out, if that was related to the "DA mode". Cheers, Jan