On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 07:33:01AM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote: > > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-boun...@lists.osuosl.org] On > > Behalf Of Jarod Wilson > > Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 6:32 PM > > To: Avargil, Raanan <raanan.avar...@intel.com> > > Cc: Hall, Christopher S <christopher.s.h...@intel.com>; > > netdev@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org; linux- > > ker...@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 ja...@redhat.com
