On 2018/02/26 08:14, Alexander Duyck wrote:
[...]
>
> >
> > switch (hw->mac.type) {
> > case e1000_pch2lan:
> > ret_val = e1000_k1_workaround_lv(hw);
> > if (ret_val)
> > - return ret_val;
> > + goto out;
> > /* fall-thru */
> > case e1000_pchlan:
> > if (hw->phy.type == e1000_phy_82578) {
> > ret_val = e1000_link_stall_workaround_hv(hw);
> > if (ret_val)
> > - return ret_val;
> > + goto out;
> > }
> >
> > /* Workaround for PCHx parts in half-duplex:
> > @@ -1595,7 +1596,7 @@ static s32 e1000_check_for_copper_link_ich8lan(struct
> > e1000_hw *hw)
> > if (hw->phy.type > e1000_phy_82579) {
> > ret_val = e1000_set_eee_pchlan(hw);
> > if (ret_val)
> > - return ret_val;
> > + goto out;
> > }
> >
> > /* If we are forcing speed/duplex, then we simply return since
> > @@ -1618,10 +1619,14 @@ static s32
> > e1000_check_for_copper_link_ich8lan(struct e1000_hw *hw)
> > ret_val = e1000e_config_fc_after_link_up(hw);
> > if (ret_val) {
> > e_dbg("Error configuring flow control\n");
> > - return ret_val;
> > + goto out;
> > }
>
> Technically these changes would be a change in behavior. For these we
> may just want to leave them as-is since I am not certain they would
> have any actual impact on the link state other than delaying the
> link-up. For example do we really care if we fail to negotiate flow
> control? We may not so we might report link up and just a debug
> message indicating we didn't negotiate that part of the link.
You're right and actually that raises yet another problem with commit
19110cfbb34d ("e1000e: Separate signaling for link check/link up").
Previously these errors which come after the "get_link_status = false"
would be ignored and the link considered up. After that commit, any
error implies that the link is down:
- link_active = !hw->mac.get_link_status;
+ link_active = ret_val > 0;
I'll send a patch to fix that problem first and then get back to this
race.
