From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarod Wilson Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out systim sanitization Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:48:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20160811154809.GA56642@redhat.com> References: <1469292274-59237-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> <1469557535-63429-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> <1469557535-63429-2-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> <8F4C390AFA9F4444A4AA77F4A3BEC78A190E7843@HASMSX110.ger.corp.intel.com> <20160727150155.GF36313@redhat.com> <20160802013214.GU36313@redhat.com> <309B89C4C689E141A5FF6A0C5FB2118B81F6579E@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Avargil, Raanan" , "Hall, Christopher S" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" To: "Brown, Aaron F" Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169]:34107 "EHLO mail-yw0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932267AbcHKPsO (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:48:14 -0400 Received: by mail-yw0-f169.google.com with SMTP id z8so4644450ywa.1 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <309B89C4C689E141A5FF6A0C5FB2118B81F6579E@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 07:33:01AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: > > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@lists.osuosl.org] On > > Behalf Of Jarod Wilson > > Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 6:32 PM > > To: Avargil, Raanan > > Cc: Hall, Christopher S ; > > netdev@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; linux- > > kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out > > systim sanitization > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:01:55AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:09:13PM +0000, Avargil, Raanan wrote: > > > >> This is prepatory work for an expanding list of adapter families that have > > occasional ~10 hour clock jumps when being used for PTP. Factor out the > > sanitization function and convert to using a feature (bug) flag, per suggestion > > from Jesse Brandeburg. > > > >> > > > >> Littering functional code with device-specific checks is much messier > > than simply checking a flag, and having device-specific init set flags as > > needed. > > > >> There are probably a number of other cases in the e1000e code that > > could/should be converted similarly. > > > > > > > > Looks ok to me. > > > > Adding Chris who asked what happens if we reach the max retry counter > > (E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREAD)? > > > > This counter is set to 50. > > > > Can you, for testing purposes, decreased this value (or even set it to 0) > > and see what happens? > > > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have direct access to the affected hardware myself, > > > so I'd have to prep a test build, hand it off to someone and play relay. I > > > could do that, but it'd have some lag and possible multiple round-trips... > > > Anyone inside Intel have hardware handy to test on? :p > > > > Was tied up with other work the middle of last week, then on vacation for > > a bit. There was some testing feedback provided from someone at neither > > Red Hat or Intel, but I'm not sure where it leaves us right now. What > > needs to happen next? > > Probably nothing else needs to be done on your end. I was out for the last week and a half and am now running the patches through a series of regression test covering a fair number of the different e1000e parts. I will also try to duplicate Tim Woodford' success on a NUC with an i218 in my lab. Assuming nothing jumps out at me I'll probably give it a tested-by later this week so that Jeff can push it on up. Looking for a status update on this one, not seeing it pushed to DaveM just yet. -- Jarod Wilson jarod@redhat.com