Skip to contentSkip to conversation

2.6.25-rc4 de_stop_rxtx polling wrong

PATCH Applied Grant Grundler 2 participants 5 messages Mar 9, 2008 – Mar 29, 2008

Subsystems (2)
Networking Network drivers
lore
Share & tools
lore

Grant Grundler

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 2.6.25-rc4 de_stop_rxtx polling wrong

Jeff,
This untested patch _should_ fix:

	"(net de2104x) Kernel panic with de2104x tulip driver on boot"	
	http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3156

But the bug submitter isn't responding. Same fix has been applied to tulip.c (several years ago) and uli526x.c (Feb 2008) drivers.

Patch was originally against 2.6.23 but applies clean against 2.6.25-rc4.

[ The panic reported in the bug report was removed in a recently
(march 2008) accepted patch from Ondrej Zary. ]

Signed-off-by Grant Grundler <[email protected]>
drivers/net/tulip/de2104x.c-ggg renamed from drivers/net/tulip/de2104x.c +7 -3
@@ -842,7 +842,7 @@
 static void de_stop_rxtx (struct de_private *de)
 {
 	u32 macmode;
-	unsigned int work = 1000;
+	unsigned int i = 1300/100;
 
 	macmode = dr32(MacMode);
 	if (macmode & RxTx) {

@@ -850,10 +850,14 @@
 		dr32(MacMode);
 	}
 
-	while (--work > 0) {
+	/* wait until in-flight frame completes.
+	 * Max time @ 10BT: 1500*8b/10Mbps == 1200us (+ 100us margin)
+	 * Typically expect this loop to end in < 50 us on 100BT.
+	 */
+	while (--i) {
 		if (!de_is_running(de))
 			return;
-		cpu_relax();
+		udelay(100);
 	}
 
 	printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: timeout expired stopping DMA\n", de->dev->name);
Applied
#1 lore raw
Quoted 8 lines · Grant Grundler

Jeff,
This untested patch _should_ fix:

	"(net de2104x) Kernel panic with de2104x tulip driver on boot"	
	http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3156

But the bug submitter isn't responding. Same fix has been applied to tulip.c (several years ago) and uli526x.c (Feb 2008) drivers.

Quoted 7 lines

Patch was originally against 2.6.23 but applies clean against 2.6.25-rc4.

[ The panic reported in the bug report was removed in a recently
(march 2008) accepted patch from Ondrej Zary. ]

Signed-off-by Grant Grundler <[email protected]>

applied

Please include comments like "Jeff," and "Patch was originally[...]" after the "---" separator, so that the automated tools may omit these comments without human intervention.

author
#2 lore raw
Quoted 12 lines · Jeff Garzik
Quoted 10 lines · Grant Grundler

Jeff,
This untested patch _should_ fix:

	"(net de2104x) Kernel panic with de2104x tulip driver on boot"	
	http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3156

But the bug submitter isn't responding. Same fix has been applied to tulip.c (several years ago) and uli526x.c (Feb 2008) drivers. Patch was originally against 2.6.23 but applies clean against 2.6.25-rc4. [ The panic reported in the bug report was removed in a recently
(march 2008) accepted patch from Ondrej Zary. ]

Signed-off-by Grant Grundler <[email protected]>
Quoted 1 line

applied

Thanks!

Quoted 3 lines

Please include comments like "Jeff," and "Patch was originally[...]" after the "---" separator, so that the automated tools may omit these comments without human intervention.

Which separator is that? I didn't explicitly add one unless you are referring to the patch itself.

Or tell me which automated tool you are using and I'd be happy to figure out how to seperate logistical comments from what should go in the "change log" (ie land in git history).

thanks,
grant

#3 lore raw
Quoted 12 lines · Grant Grundler
Quoted 11 lines · Jeff Garzik
Quoted 10 lines · Grant Grundler

Jeff,
This untested patch _should_ fix:

	"(net de2104x) Kernel panic with de2104x tulip driver on boot"	
	http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3156

But the bug submitter isn't responding. Same fix has been applied to tulip.c (several years ago) and uli526x.c (Feb 2008) drivers. Patch was originally against 2.6.23 but applies clean against 2.6.25-rc4. [ The panic reported in the bug report was removed in a recently
(march 2008) accepted patch from Ondrej Zary. ]

Signed-off-by Grant Grundler <[email protected]>
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line

applied

Thanks!

Quoted 1 line

Please include comments like "Jeff," and "Patch was originally[...]" after the "---" separator, so that the automated tools may omit these comments without human intervention.

Which separator is that? I didn't explicitly add one unless you are referring to the patch itself.

See #14 of Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

Basically, anything after "---" in the email body (except for the patch content itself) is intentionally ignored -- and thus is used for comments like "Jeff, quit sitting on your ass and apply this damned patch" that are relevant but do not belong in the permanent kernel history.

Quoted 3 lines

Or tell me which automated tool you are using and I'd be happy to figure out how to seperate logistical comments from what should go in the "change log" (ie land in git history).

git-am, Linus's tool that many of us git'ers use for importing patches from email.

Jeff

author
#4 lore raw

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 06:02:47PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
...

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Please include comments like "Jeff," and "Patch was originally[...]" after the "---" separator, so that the automated tools may omit these comments without human intervention.

Which separator is that? I didn't explicitly add one unless you are referring to the patch itself.

See #14 of Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

Wow...this document got a rewrite since the last time I read it. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll follow that on future patches.

Quoted 4 lines

Basically, anything after "---" in the email body (except for the patch content itself) is intentionally ignored -- and thus is used for comments like "Jeff, quit sitting on your ass and apply this damned patch" that are relevant but do not belong in the permanent kernel history.

*nod*

...

Quoted 2 lines

git-am, Linus's tool that many of us git'ers use for importing patches from email.

Ok - will read the man page for that too.

cheers,
grant