Hi,
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:55:54 +0100, Olivier MATZ
<olivier.m...@dev.6wind.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 20:51:58 +0000, "Rowden, Aaron F"
> <aaron.f.row...@intel.com> wrote:
> > Hi Helin,
> >
> > I'm checking on this to see why it could be failing but I don’t
> > think this is one part of formal validation. Intel modules are
> > always what is recommended.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > > Hi Helin,
> > >
> > > > On 11 Jan 2017, at 09:08, Zhang, Helin <helin.zh...@intel.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Aaron
> > > >
> > > > Is the SFP+ (Finisar FTLX8571D3BCL) supported and validated by
> > > > Intel? It seems there is some PHY issue in this case.
> > >
> > > As the original reporter of this issue, I will test with validated
> > > SFP+s and will report on my testing.
> > >
> > > Shouldn’t unsupported SFP+s be blacklisted in the I40E driver?
> > >
>
> Just to let you know that in my case the SFP are Intel ones.
> Maybe it's a different issue.
>
> I see there are some i40e fixes in the net-next repo, I'll give a try
> with this version.
The issue still exists in net-next.
I did a git bissect, and the commit that introduces the issue is:
f4668a33efe5 ("net/i40e: fix link status change interrupt") [1]
If I revert it (with some conflicts), the problem I described
in [2] disappear.
Helin, Jinging, do you know what would be the consequences of reverting
this patch?
Christos, I don't know if it also helps for yor issue. If no, sorry for
having squatted your topic, the symptoms looked quite similar at first
glance.
Thanks,
Olivier
[1] http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=f4668a33efe5
[2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054401.html
