From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
To: zyjzyj2000@gmail.com, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com,
shannon.nelson@intel.com, carolyn.wyborny@intel.com,
donald.c.skidmore@intel.com, bruce.w.allan@intel.com,
john.ronciak@intel.com, mitch.a.williams@intel.com,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: venkat.viswanathan@windriver.com, Boris.Shteinbock@windriver.com,
Vincent.Bourg@windriver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ixgbe: force to synchronize reporting "link on" and getting speed and duplex
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 02:54:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1450868046.3316.11.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1450853205-27133-1-git-send-email-zyjzyj2000@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2615 bytes --]
On Wed, 2015-12-23 at 14:46 +0800, zyjzyj2000@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com>
>
> In X540 NIC, there is a time span between reporting "link on" and
> getting the speed and duplex. To a bonding driver in 802.3ad mode,
> this time span will make it not work well if the time span is big
> enough. The big time span will make bonding driver change the state
> of
> the slave device to up while the speed and duplex of the slave device
> can not be gotten. Later the bonding driver will not have change to
> get the speed and duplex of the slave device. The speed and duplex of
> the slave device are important to a bonding driver in 802.3ad mode.
>
> To 82599_SFP NIC and other kinds of NICs, this problem does
> not exist. As such, it is necessary for X540 to report"link on" when
> the link speed is not IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_UNKNOWN.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c | 16
> +++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
> index aed8d02..cb9d310 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
> @@ -6479,7 +6479,21 @@ static void ixgbe_watchdog_link_is_up(struct
> ixgbe_adapter *adapter)
> (flow_rx ? "RX" :
> (flow_tx ? "TX" : "None"))));
>
> - netif_carrier_on(netdev);
> + /*
> + * In X540 NIC, there is a time span between reporting "link
> on"
> + * and getting the speed and duplex. To a bonding driver in
> 802.3ad
> + * mode, this time span will make it not work well if the
> time span
> + * is big enough. To 82599_SFP NIC and other kinds of NICs,
> this
> + * problem does not exist. As such, it is better for X540 to
> report
> + * "link on" when the link speed is not
> IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_UNKNOWN.
> + */
> + if ((hw->mac.type == ixgbe_mac_X540) &&
> + (link_speed != IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_UNKNOWN)) {
> + netif_carrier_on(netdev);
> + } else {
> + netif_carrier_on(netdev);
> + }
> +
> ixgbe_check_vf_rate_limit(adapter);
>
> /* enable transmits */
This patch only adds a needless test before
calling netif_carrier_on(netdev), since the call happens no matter the
branch you take, it appears your running into a timing issue. So
adding a wait() before calling netif_carrier_on(netdev) will accomplish
the same result and you do not have to add a useless test.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-23 10:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-23 6:46 [PATCH 1/1] ixgbe: force to synchronize reporting "link on" and getting speed and duplex zyjzyj2000
2015-12-23 10:54 ` Jeff Kirsher [this message]
2015-12-24 3:12 ` [V2 PATCH 1/1] ixgbe: force to synchronize reporting "link on" and zyjzyj2000
2015-12-24 3:12 ` [PATCH 1/1] ixgbe: force to synchronize reporting "link on" and getting speed zyjzyj2000
2015-12-24 5:10 ` [V2 PATCH 1/1] ixgbe: force to synchronize reporting "link on" and zhuyj
2015-12-24 6:17 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Tantilov, Emil S
2015-12-29 2:32 ` [PATCH V3] ixgbe: force to synchronize link_up and speed as a slave zyjzyj2000
2015-12-29 2:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] ixgbe: force to synchronize reporting "link on" and getting speed zyjzyj2000
2015-12-29 2:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: restrict synchronization of link_up and speed zyjzyj2000
2015-12-29 16:18 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Tantilov, Emil S
2015-12-29 19:17 ` Rustad, Mark D
2015-12-30 3:06 ` zhuyj
2015-12-30 9:16 ` [PATCH V4] ixgbe: synchronize the link_speed and link_up of a slave interface zyjzyj2000
2015-12-30 9:16 ` [PATCH 1/3] ixgbe: force to synchronize reporting "link on" and getting speed zyjzyj2000
2015-12-30 9:16 ` [PATCH 2/3] ixgbe: restrict synchronization of link_up and speed zyjzyj2000
2015-12-30 9:16 ` [PATCH 3/3] ixgbe: synchronize the link_speed and link_up of a slave interface zyjzyj2000
2015-12-30 19:02 ` Rustad, Mark D
2015-12-31 5:04 ` [PATCH V5] ixgbe: synchronize link_up and link_speed of a slave zyjzyj2000
2015-12-31 5:04 ` [PATCH 1/1] ixgbe: synchronize link_up and link_speed of a slave interface zyjzyj2000
2015-12-31 5:37 ` Jeff Kirsher
2015-12-31 7:11 ` [PATCH V6] ixgbe: synchronize link_up and link_speed of a slave zyjzyj2000
2015-12-31 7:11 ` [PATCH V6 1/1] ixgbe: synchronize link_up and link_speed of a slave interface zyjzyj2000
2015-12-31 5:17 ` [PATCH V5] ixgbe: synchronize link_up and link_speed of a slave Jeff Kirsher
2015-12-31 5:24 ` zhuyj
2015-12-30 2:49 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: restrict synchronization of link_up and speed zhuyj
2015-12-30 6:55 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2015-12-30 8:20 ` zhuyj
2015-12-30 16:37 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-06 5:41 ` zhuyj
2016-01-06 15:30 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-07 2:08 ` zhuyj
2016-01-07 2:38 ` zhuyj
2015-12-23 12:17 ` [PATCH 1/1] ixgbe: force to synchronize reporting "link on" and getting speed and duplex Sergei Shtylyov
2015-12-23 15:59 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Tantilov, Emil S
2015-12-23 18:09 ` [E1000-devel] " Stephen Hemminger
2015-12-24 2:27 ` zhuyj
2015-12-24 5:58 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2015-12-24 6:24 ` zhuyj
2015-12-24 14:52 ` Tantilov, Emil S
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1450868046.3316.11.camel@intel.com \
--to=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=Boris.Shteinbock@windriver.com \
--cc=Vincent.Bourg@windriver.com \
--cc=bruce.w.allan@intel.com \
--cc=carolyn.wyborny@intel.com \
--cc=donald.c.skidmore@intel.com \
--cc=e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=john.ronciak@intel.com \
--cc=mitch.a.williams@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shannon.nelson@intel.com \
--cc=venkat.viswanathan@windriver.com \
--cc=zyjzyj2000@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).