On 12/31/2015 12:37 AM, Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: zhuyj [mailto:zyjzyj2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 12:20 AM
To: Tantilov, Emil S; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Brandeburg, Jesse; Nelson,
Shannon; Wyborny, Carolyn; Skidmore, Donald C; Allan, Bruce W; Ronciak,
John; Williams, Mitch A; intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org;
netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-de...@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Viswanathan, Ven (Wind River); Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River); Bourg,
Vincent (Wind River)
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: restrict synchronization
of link_up and speed
On 12/30/2015 02:55 PM, Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: zhuyj [mailto:zyjzyj2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 6:49 PM
To: Tantilov, Emil S; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Brandeburg, Jesse; Nelson,
Shannon; Wyborny, Carolyn; Skidmore, Donald C; Allan, Bruce W; Ronciak,
John; Williams, Mitch A; intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org;
netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-de...@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Viswanathan, Ven (Wind River); Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River);
Bourg,
Vincent (Wind River)
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: restrict
synchronization
of link_up and speed
On 12/30/2015 12:18 AM, Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-
boun...@lists.osuosl.org]
On
Behalf Of zyjzyj2...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 6:32 PM
To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Brandeburg, Jesse; Nelson, Shannon; Wyborny,
Carolyn; Skidmore, Donald C; Allan, Bruce W; Ronciak, John; Williams,
Mitch
A; intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-
de...@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Viswanathan, Ven (Wind River); Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River);
Bourg,
Vincent (Wind River)
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: restrict synchronization
of
link_up and speed
From: Zhu Yanjun <yanjun....@windriver.com>
When the X540 NIC acts as a slave of some virtual NICs, it is very
important to synchronize link_up and link_speed, such as a bonding
driver in 802.3ad mode. When X540 NIC acts as an independent
interface,
it is not necessary to synchronize link_up and link_speed. That is,
the time span between link_up and link_speed is acceptable.
What exactly do you mean by "time span between link_up and link_speed"?
In the previous mail, I show you some ethtool logs. In these logs, there
is some
time with NIC up while speed is unknown. I think this "some time" is
time span between
link_up and link_speed. Please see the previous mail for details.
Was this when reporting the link state from check_link() (reading the
LINKS
register) or reporting the adapter->link_speed?
Where is it you think the de-synchronization occurs?
When a NIC interface acts as a slave, a flag "IFF_SLAVE" is set in
netdevice struct.
Before we enter this function, we check IFF_SLAVE flag. If this flag is
set, we continue to check
link_speed. If not, this function is executed whether this link_speed is
unknown or not.
I can already see this in your patch. I was asking about the reason why
your change is needed.
an extreme example, let us assume this scenario:
Is this the scenario you are trying to fix?
Sure. If IFF_SLAVE is checked, this scenario will not happen.
Zhu Yanjun
An ixgbe NIC directly connects to another NIC (let us call it NIC-a).
And auto-negotiate is off while no static speed is set in the 2 NICs.
The ixgbe driver does not support disabling auto-negotiation directly.
The only time this is true is when the advertised speed is restricted,
so the above scenario is not possible (you either have autoneg or
advertised speed set) with the current driver.
Is this example in theory or do you have your interface configured this
way somehow?
Thanks,
Emil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
