Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, David Miller wrote:

[Jesse Brandeburg]

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Jesse Brandeburg
<jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Karsten has been testing kernel with these three patches from the series
>> applied:
>>
>>        e1000e: reset swflag after resetting hardware
>>        e1000e: fix lockdep issues
>>        e1000e: debug contention on NVM SWFLAG
>>
>> This was done on a hardware which previously triggered the bug in just a
>> few test iterations in quite a reliable way. Now, with these patches
>> applied, the EEPROM corruption didn't happen after several tens of
>> iterations.
>>
>> Please note, that the patch that disables the writes to EEPROM on hardware
>> level was *not* involved in this testing.
>>
>> Therefore it currently seems that these three patches really address the
>> race condition issue that was present in the e1000e driver.
>
> Our experience is different.  We are also testing with the "protection
> patch" reverted.
>
> We see that the problem specifically comes and goes when
> removing/adding the use of set_memory_ro/set_memory_rw to the driver.
>
> I'm working to catch the bad element in the act with a hardware
> breakpoint or an ITP (we're trying both)
>
>> It is still not clear why the bug started triggering all of a sudden for
>> so many people though.
>
> we plan to keep on working on this until we understand what is going on.

I removed the bad addresses from the cc: list
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/