RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

> From: Intel-wired-lan [intel-wired-lan-boun...@lists.osuosl.org] on behalf of > Cao jin [caoj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 11:06 PM To> : linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; net...@vger.kernel.org > Cc: izumi.t...@jp.fujitsu.com; intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org > Subject:

RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

> From: Intel-wired-lan [intel-wired-lan-boun...@lists.osuosl.org] on behalf of > Cao jin [caoj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 11:06 PM To> : linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; net...@vger.kernel.org > Cc: izumi.t...@jp.fujitsu.com; intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org > Subject:

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Nov 10 05:48, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Nov 8 11:33, Alexander Duyck wrote: > ... > > > The question I would have is what is reading the device when it is in > > > this state. The watchdog and any other functions that would read the > > >

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Nov 10 05:48, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Nov 8 11:33, Alexander Duyck wrote: > ... > > > The question I would have is what is reading the device when it is in > > > this state. The watchdog and any other functions that would read the > > >

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Nov 8 11:33, Alexander Duyck wrote: ... The question I would have is what is reading the device when it is in this state. The watchdog and any other functions that would read the device should be disabled. One possibility could be a race

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Nov 8 11:33, Alexander Duyck wrote: ... The question I would have is what is reading the device when it is in this state. The watchdog and any other functions that would read the device should be disabled. One possibility could be a race

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Nov 8 11:33, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Nov 8 09:16, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> > On Nov 8 15:06, Cao jin wrote: > >> > > When running as guest, under

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Nov 8 11:33, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Nov 8 09:16, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> > On Nov 8 15:06, Cao jin wrote: > >> > > When running as guest, under certain condition, it

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

Thanks Corrina for your info. I tested my patch, it works for me on kernel 4.9-rc4. "surprise removal" maybe another issue to solve. This one is enough to solve my issue and other one's, could it be accept first? Cao jin On 11/09/2016 03:33 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote: On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

Thanks Corrina for your info. I tested my patch, it works for me on kernel 4.9-rc4. "surprise removal" maybe another issue to solve. This one is enough to solve my issue and other one's, could it be accept first? Cao jin On 11/09/2016 03:33 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote: On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Nov 8 09:16, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > On Nov 8 15:06, Cao jin wrote: >> > > When running as guest, under certain condition, it will oops as >> > > following.

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Nov 8 09:16, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > On Nov 8 15:06, Cao jin wrote: >> > > When running as guest, under certain condition, it will oops as >> > > following. >> > > writel() in

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Nov 8 09:16, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Nov 8 15:06, Cao jin wrote: > > > When running as guest, under certain condition, it will oops as following. > > > writel() in igb_configure_tx_ring() results in oops, because hw->hw_addr > > > is

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Nov 8 09:16, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Nov 8 15:06, Cao jin wrote: > > > When running as guest, under certain condition, it will oops as following. > > > writel() in igb_configure_tx_ring() results in oops, because hw->hw_addr > > > is

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: Incidentally we're just looking for a solution to that problem too. Do three patches to fix the same problem at rougly the same time already qualify as freak accident? FTR, I attached my current patch, which I was planning to submit after some

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: Incidentally we're just looking for a solution to that problem too. Do three patches to fix the same problem at rougly the same time already qualify as freak accident? FTR, I attached my current patch, which I was planning to submit after some

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Nov 8 15:06, Cao jin wrote: When running as guest, under certain condition, it will oops as following. writel() in igb_configure_tx_ring() results in oops, because hw->hw_addr is NULL. While other register access won't oops kernel because they

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Nov 8 15:06, Cao jin wrote: When running as guest, under certain condition, it will oops as following. writel() in igb_configure_tx_ring() results in oops, because hw->hw_addr is NULL. While other register access won't oops kernel because they

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Nov 8 15:06, Cao jin wrote: > When running as guest, under certain condition, it will oops as following. > writel() in igb_configure_tx_ring() results in oops, because hw->hw_addr > is NULL. While other register access won't oops kernel because they use > wr32/rd32 which have a defense against

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: use igb_adapter->io_addr instead of e1000_hw->hw_addr

On Nov 8 15:06, Cao jin wrote: > When running as guest, under certain condition, it will oops as following. > writel() in igb_configure_tx_ring() results in oops, because hw->hw_addr > is NULL. While other register access won't oops kernel because they use > wr32/rd32 which have a defense against