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

[Hisashi T Fujinaka]

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 external testing.
> >
> > However, all three patches have one thing in common:  They workaround
> > a somewhat dubious resetting of the hardware address to NULL in case
> > reading from a register failed.
> >
> > That makes me wonder if setting the hardware address to NULL in
> > rd32/igb_rd32 is really such a good idea.  It's performed in a function
> > which return value is *never* tested for validity in the calling
> > functions and leads to subsequent crashes since no tests for hw_addr ==
> > NULL are performed.
> >
> > Maybe commit 22a8b2915 should be reconsidered?  Isn't there some more
> > graceful way to handle the "surprise removal"?
>
> Answering this from my home account because, well, work is Outlook.
>
> "Reconsidering" would be great. In fact, revert if if you'd like. I'm
> uncertain that the surprise removal code actually works the way I
> thought previously and I think I took a lot of it out of my local code.
>
> Unfortuantely I don't have any equipment that I can use to reproduce
> surprise removal any longer so that means I wouldn't be able to test
> anything. I have to defer to you or Cao Jin.

Whoops. Never mind. I was just told that I had a bug that Alex Duyck and
Cao Jin just fixed. I'd stick to listening to Alex.

--
Hisashi T Fujinaka - htodd@xxxxxxxxxxxx