Re: call for bge(4) testers

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:37:41PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
 > On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:20:23PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
 > P> After fixing em(4) watchdog bug, I looked over bge(4) and I think
 > P> bge(4) may suffer from the same issue. So if you have seen occasional
 > P> watchdog timeout errors on bge(4) please give the attached patch a try.
 > P> The patch does fix false watchdog timeout error only.
 > P> Typical pheonoma for false watchdog timeout error are
 > P>        o polling(4) fix the issue
 > P>        o random watchdog error
 > P> 
 > P> If my patch fix the issue you could see the following messages.
 > P> "missing Tx completion interrupt!" or "link lost -- resetting"
 > 
 > I still think that this fix is incorrect. It is just a more gentle
 > recovery from a fake watchdog timeout.
 > 

Its sole purpose is to reinitialize hardware for real watchdog
timeouts. It's not fix for general watchdog timeouts. As I said other
mails, the fake watchdog timeout(losing Tx interrupts) for hardwares
with Tx interrupt moderation capability could be normal thing. So I
just want to know bge(4) also has the same feature(bug).

 > The more I think, the more I doubt that we really need the
 > watchdog infrastructure that comes from old days.
 > 

Would you give other way to recover from Tx stuck condition without
using watchdog?

-- 
Regards,
Pyun YongHyeon