From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [net-next 03/12] e1000e: add check on e1e_wphy() return value Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 19:53:40 -0700 Message-ID: <1502420020.3099.1.camel@perches.com> References: <20170809214746.28139-1-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <20170809214746.28139-4-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <1502387812.2219.44.camel@perches.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, nhorman@redhat.com, sassmann@redhat.com, jogreene@redhat.com To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , Jeff Kirsher , davem@davemloft.net Return-path: Received: from smtprelay0190.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.190]:54347 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752248AbdHKCxo (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:53:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 21:47 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I'm a little confused. Is this patch causing any trouble? Not to me. I no longer have an e1000e. Given the commit message, this just seemed to be a patch that _might_ cause an issue if this code patch is actually untested. Compilation wise, it's obviously fine. > On 08/10/2017 12:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 14:47 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > From: Gustavo A R Silva > > > > > > Check return value from call to e1e_wphy(). This value is being > > > checked during previous calls to function e1e_wphy() and it seems > > > a check was missing here. > > > > The use of "it seems" here is less than compelling. > > > > This is one of the first patches I sent. Maybe I should have added a > note saying that this patch needed some testing, as I don't have the > hardware to test it. > > > Perhaps the write of 0x3140 to MII_BMCR takes too long for > > the return value used. > > > > Many other uses of e1e_wphy.*MII_BMCR are also not checked. > > > > For instance: the e100e/ethtool uses. > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ich8lan.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ich8lan.c > > > > [] > > > @@ -2437,6 +2437,8 @@ static s32 e1000_hv_phy_workarounds_ich8lan(struct e1000_hw *hw) > > > if (hw->phy.revision < 2) { > > > e1000e_phy_sw_reset(hw); > > > ret_val = e1e_wphy(hw, MII_BMCR, 0x3140); > > > + if (ret_val) > > > + return ret_val; > > > } > > > } > > > > > Thanks