Hi! > >>>So patch currently looks like this (hand edited, can't be > >>>applied, got it working few hours ago). Does it look acceptable? > >>> > >>>I'd prefer this to go after the patch that pulls common code to single > >>>place, so that single place needs to be patched. Plus I guess I should > >>>add ifdefs, so that more advanced NAPI / tx coalescing code can be > >>>reactivated when it is fixed. Trivial fixes can go on top. Does that > >>>sound like a plan? > >> > >>Hmm, what I find strange is that, just this code is running since a > >>long time on several platforms and Chip versions. No raise condition > >>have been found or lock protection problems (also proving look > >>mechanisms). > > > >Well, it works better for me when I disable CONFIG_SMP. It is normal > >that locking problems are hard to reproduce :-(. > > can you share me the test, maybe I can try to reproduce on ARM box. > Are you using 3.x or 4.x GMAC?
I'm using board similar to altera socfpga. 3.70a, as far as I can
tell.
gmac0: ethernet@ff700000 {
compatible = "altr,socfpga-stmmac", "snps,dwmac-3.70a",
"snps,dwmac\
";
> >>Pavel, I ask you sorry if I missed some problems so, if you can
> >>(as D. Miller asked) to send us a cover letter + all patches
> >>I will try to reply soon. I can do also some tests if you ask
> >>me that! I could run on 3.x and 4.x but I cannot promise you
> >>benchmarks.
> >
> >Actually... I have questions here. David normally pulls from you (can
> >I have a address of your git tree?).
>
> No I send the patches to the mailing list.
Aha, ok.
Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
