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

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:

quoted

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@twofifty.com