From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] r8169: Rx FIFO overflow fixes. Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:37:40 -0600 Message-ID: <20120220023740.GA4433@burratino> References: <20111127092808.GE21635@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net> <4ED2A573.1020807@wolke7.net> <20111127231147.GA1784@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20111129105440.GA2410@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <4ED538EC.4010509@wolke7.net> <20111201102000.GA14013@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <4ED7E6AB.6050308@wolke7.net> <20111201222612.GA27998@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20111205063045.GA3103@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: booster@wolke7.net, hayeswang , 'Eric Dumazet' , netdev@vger.kernel.org, 'nic_swsd' , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 'Armin Kazmi' , Lucas Stach To: Francois Romieu Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111205063045.GA3103@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi Fran=C3=A7ois, Gerd, et al, =46rancois Romieu wrote: > Realtek has specified that the post 8168c gigabit chips and the post > 8105e fast ethernet chips recover automatically from a Rx FIFO overfl= ow. > The driver does not need to clear the RxFIFOOver bit of IntrStatus an= d > it should rather avoid messing it. > > The implementation deserves some explanation: I would be interested in some subset of these fixes for 3.0.y and 2.6.32.y. In particular: > 1. events outside of the intr_event bit mask are now ignored. > a no-processing policy for the events that either should not be th= ere > or should be ignored. This seems like a valuable and unrisky change. > 2. RxFIFOOver was already ignored in rtl_cfg_infos[RTL_CFG_1] for the > whole 8168 line of chips with two exceptions: > - RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_22 since b5ba6d12bdac21bc0620a5089e0f24e362645e= fd > ("use RxFIFO overflow workaround for 8168c chipset."). > This one should now be correctly handled. This seems useful if we can test it. [...] > 3. RxFIFOOver is masked for post 8105e 810x chips, namely the sole 81= 05e > (RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_30) itself. This also seems useful if we can test it. What do you think? Is there any way I can help? (E.g., given rough guidelines about what approach is acceptable I'd be happy to work with Gerd to produce a tested patch that does (1) and (2) but not (3) for 3.0.y.) Thanks for your hard work, Jonathan