RE: [Intel-wired-lan] v4.15-rc2 on thinkpad x60: ethernet stopped working

[Fujinaka, Todd]

Jeff was out sick last week. It might take him a bit to catch up.

I'll remind him when I see him next (which I hope is soon).

Todd Fujinaka
Software Application Engineer
Datacenter Engineering Group
Intel Corporation
todd.fujinaka@xxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neftin, Sasha
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 7:50 AM
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>; Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: bpoirier@xxxxxxxx; nix.or.die@xxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-wired-lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lsorense@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] v4.15-rc2 on thinkpad x60: ethernet stopped working

On 12/18/2017 13:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2017-12-18 13:24:40, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
>> On 12/18/2017 12:26, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>>>>>> In v4.15-rc2+, network manager can not see my ethernet card, and 
>>>>>>> manual attempts to ifconfig it up did not really help, either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Card is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82573L Gigabit 
>>>>>>> Ethernet Controller
>>>>> ....
>>>>>>> Any ideas ?
>>>>>> Yes , 19110cfbb34d4af0cdfe14cd243f3b09dc95b013 broke it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See:
>>>>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198047
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix there :
>>>>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151272209903675&w=2
>>>>> I don't see the patch in latest mainline. Not having ethernet 
>>>>> is... somehow annoying. What is going on there?
>>>> Generally speaking, e1000 maintainence has been handled very poorly 
>>>> over the past few years, I have to say.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes take forever to propagate even when someone other than the 
>>>> maintainer provides a working and tested fix, just like this case.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff, please take e1000 maintainence seriously and get these 
>>>> critical bug fixes propagated.
>>> No response AFAICT. I guess I should test reverting 
>>> 19110cfbb34d4af0cdfe14cd243f3b09dc95b013, then ask you for revert?
>> Hello Pavel,
>>
>> Before ask for reverting 19110cfbb..., please, check if follow patch 
>> of Benjamin work for you http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/846825/
> Jacob said, in another email:
>
> # Digging into this, the problem is complicated. The original bug # 
> assumed behavior of the .check_for_link call, which is universally not 
> # implemented.
> #
> # I think the correct fix is to revert 19110cfbb34d ("e1000e: Separate 
> # signaling for link check/link up", 2017-10-10) and find a more proper solution.
>
> ...which makes me think that revert is preffered?
>
> 									Pavel
>
Pavel, before ask for revert - let's check Benjamin's patch following to his previous patch. Previous patch was not competed and latest one come to complete changes.

_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
Intel-wired-lan@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan