* [PATCH 3/3] ep93xx_eth: don't report RX FIFO overrun errors
@ 2006-10-29 13:06 Lennert Buytenhek
2006-10-29 18:15 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Lennert Buytenhek @ 2006-10-29 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jeff; +Cc: netdev, Ray Lehtiniemi, Herbert Valerio Riedel
Flooding the console with an RX FIFO overrun error for every single
dropped packet isn't very sensible. The hardware is very underpowered
according to today's standards, and RX FIFO overrun errors can be
triggered quite easily, so don't report them at all.
Signed-off-by: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>
Index: linux-2.6.19-rc3/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc3.orig/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc3/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
@@ -230,8 +230,9 @@ static int ep93xx_rx(struct net_device *
" %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
if (!(rstat0 & RSTAT0_RWE)) {
- printk(KERN_NOTICE "ep93xx_rx: receive error "
- " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
+ if (!(rstat0 & RSTAT_OE))
+ printk(KERN_NOTICE "ep93xx_rx: receive error "
+ " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
ep->stats.rx_errors++;
if (rstat0 & RSTAT0_OE)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] ep93xx_eth: don't report RX FIFO overrun errors
2006-10-29 13:06 [PATCH 3/3] ep93xx_eth: don't report RX FIFO overrun errors Lennert Buytenhek
@ 2006-10-29 18:15 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
2006-10-29 18:22 ` Lennert Buytenhek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ray Lehtiniemi @ 2006-10-29 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lennert Buytenhek; +Cc: jeff, netdev, Herbert Valerio Riedel
On Sunday 29 October 2006 06:06, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> Flooding the console with an RX FIFO overrun error for every single
> dropped packet isn't very sensible. The hardware is very underpowered
> according to today's standards, and RX FIFO overrun errors can be
> triggered quite easily, so don't report them at all.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>
>
> Index: linux-2.6.19-rc3/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.19-rc3.orig/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> +++ linux-2.6.19-rc3/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> @@ -230,8 +230,9 @@ static int ep93xx_rx(struct net_device *
> " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
>
> if (!(rstat0 & RSTAT0_RWE)) {
> - printk(KERN_NOTICE "ep93xx_rx: receive error "
> - " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
> + if (!(rstat0 & RSTAT_OE))
> + printk(KERN_NOTICE "ep93xx_rx: receive error "
> + " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
>
> ep->stats.rx_errors++;
> if (rstat0 & RSTAT0_OE)
i got a compile error: please s/RSTAT_OE/RSTAT0_OE/ in this patch. Also, is
it possible for any other error bits to be set at the same time as OE? such
bits would not be printed to the log in this case.
ray
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] ep93xx_eth: don't report RX FIFO overrun errors
2006-10-29 18:15 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
@ 2006-10-29 18:22 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2006-10-29 18:41 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Lennert Buytenhek @ 2006-10-29 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ray Lehtiniemi; +Cc: jeff, netdev, Herbert Valerio Riedel
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:15:28AM -0700, Ray Lehtiniemi wrote:
> > Index: linux-2.6.19-rc3/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.19-rc3.orig/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.19-rc3/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> > @@ -230,8 +230,9 @@ static int ep93xx_rx(struct net_device *
> > " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
> >
> > if (!(rstat0 & RSTAT0_RWE)) {
> > - printk(KERN_NOTICE "ep93xx_rx: receive error "
> > - " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
> > + if (!(rstat0 & RSTAT_OE))
> > + printk(KERN_NOTICE "ep93xx_rx: receive error "
> > + " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
> >
> > ep->stats.rx_errors++;
> > if (rstat0 & RSTAT0_OE)
>
> i got a compile error: please s/RSTAT_OE/RSTAT0_OE/ in this patch.
Whoops, I thought I sent the right one. :(
> Also, is it possible for any other error bits to be set at the same
> time as OE? such bits would not be printed to the log in this case.
Not sure, but arguably, this wouldn't be very interesting. Actually,
now I'm wondering whether we should just remove the printk altogether.
cheers,
Lennert
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] ep93xx_eth: don't report RX FIFO overrun errors
2006-10-29 18:22 ` Lennert Buytenhek
@ 2006-10-29 18:41 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ray Lehtiniemi @ 2006-10-29 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lennert Buytenhek; +Cc: jeff, netdev, Herbert Valerio Riedel
On Sunday 29 October 2006 11:22, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> > Also, is it possible for any other error bits to be set at the same
> > time as OE? such bits would not be printed to the log in this case.
>
> Not sure, but arguably, this wouldn't be very interesting. Actually,
> now I'm wondering whether we should just remove the printk altogether.
i don't see why we need a printk... the error counters _should_ be sufficient.
ray
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-10-29 18:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-10-29 13:06 [PATCH 3/3] ep93xx_eth: don't report RX FIFO overrun errors Lennert Buytenhek
2006-10-29 18:15 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
2006-10-29 18:22 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2006-10-29 18:41 ` Ray Lehtiniemi
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).