From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: regression in ixgbe SFP detection patch Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:09:54 -0800 Message-ID: <5643BCB2.6070104@gmail.com> References: <20151111173527.GA3641@gandi.net> <87618083B2453E4A8714035B62D67992504DF0AA@FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com> <20151111213458.GD3641@gandi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "Schmitt, Phillip J" , "intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org" To: William Dauchy , "Tantilov, Emil S" Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]:33588 "EHLO mail-pa0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752435AbbKKWJ4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:09:56 -0500 Received: by pabfh17 with SMTP id fh17so42768277pab.0 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:09:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151111213458.GD3641@gandi.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/11/2015 01:34 PM, William Dauchy wrote: > On Nov11 20:33, Tantilov, Emil S wrote: >> If the diff above is the patch you are referring to then you will break the >> SFP+ detection in the case where the driver was loaded while there were no >> SFP+ modules present in the cages. > understood, I was surprised of the modification of behavior. You might try testing against net-next to see if the problem still exists. It looks like the code in question doesn't exist upstream as it was replaced in commit 45788d2af928 ("ixgbe: fix issue with sfp events with new X550 devices"). - Alex