Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753980AbcKHScP (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 13:32:15 -0500 Received: from mail.i8u.org ([75.148.87.25]:25984 "EHLO chris.i8u.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752046AbcKHScM (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 13:32:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:32:10 -0800 (PST) From: Hisashi T Fujinaka X-X-Sender: htodd@chris.i8u.org To: Corinna Vinschen cc: Cao jin , netdev@vger.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1478588780-24480-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20161108164214.GF31855@calimero.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20.17 (NEB 179 2016-10-28) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1601 Lines: 37 On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: >> Incidentally we're just looking for a solution to that problem too. >> Do three patches to fix the same problem at rougly the same time already >> qualify as freak accident? >> >> FTR, I attached my current patch, which I was planning to submit after >> some external testing. >> >> However, all three patches have one thing in common: They workaround >> a somewhat dubious resetting of the hardware address to NULL in case >> reading from a register failed. >> >> That makes me wonder if setting the hardware address to NULL in >> rd32/igb_rd32 is really such a good idea. It's performed in a function >> which return value is *never* tested for validity in the calling >> functions and leads to subsequent crashes since no tests for hw_addr == >> NULL are performed. >> >> Maybe commit 22a8b2915 should be reconsidered? Isn't there some more >> graceful way to handle the "surprise removal"? > > Answering this from my home account because, well, work is Outlook. > > "Reconsidering" would be great. In fact, revert if if you'd like. I'm > uncertain that the surprise removal code actually works the way I > thought previously and I think I took a lot of it out of my local code. > > Unfortuantely I don't have any equipment that I can use to reproduce > surprise removal any longer so that means I wouldn't be able to test > anything. I have to defer to you or Cao Jin. Whoops. Never mind. I was just told that I had a bug that Alex Duyck and Cao Jin just fixed. I'd stick to listening to Alex. -- Hisashi T Fujinaka - htodd@twofifty.com