Kristian Evensen [off-list ref] writes:
Hi all,
I was able to trigger the same issue as reported by Paul, and came
across this patch (+ Daniele's other patch and thread on the libqmi
mailing list). Applying Paul's fix solved the problem for me, changing
the MTU of the QMI interface now works fine. Thanks a lot to everyone
involved!
I just have one question, is there a specific reason for the patch not
being resubmitted or Daniele's work not resumed? I do not use any of
the aggregation-stuff, so I don't know how that is affected by for
example Paul's change. If there is anything I can do to help, please
let me know.
Thanks for bringing this back into our collective memory. The patch
never made it to patchwork, probably due to the formatting issues, and
was just forgotten.
There are no other reasons than Daniele's concerns in the email you are
replying to, AFAIK. The issue pointed out by Paull should be fixed, but
the fix must not break aggregation..
This is a great opportunity for you to play with QMAP aggregation :-)
Wouldn't it be good to do some measurements to document why it is such a
bad idea?
Bjørn
Hi Kristian and Bjørn,
Il giorno lun 7 set 2020 alle ore 09:45 Bjørn Mork [off-list ref] ha scritto:
Kristian Evensen [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Hi all,
I was able to trigger the same issue as reported by Paul, and came
across this patch (+ Daniele's other patch and thread on the libqmi
mailing list). Applying Paul's fix solved the problem for me, changing
the MTU of the QMI interface now works fine. Thanks a lot to everyone
involved!
I just have one question, is there a specific reason for the patch not
being resubmitted or Daniele's work not resumed? I do not use any of
the aggregation-stuff, so I don't know how that is affected by for
example Paul's change. If there is anything I can do to help, please
let me know.
Thanks for bringing this back into our collective memory. The patch
never made it to patchwork, probably due to the formatting issues, and
was just forgotten.
There are no other reasons than Daniele's concerns in the email you are
replying to, AFAIK. The issue pointed out by Paull should be fixed, but
the fix must not break aggregation..
This is a great opportunity for you to play with QMAP aggregation :-)
Wouldn't it be good to do some measurements to document why it is such a
bad idea?
there was also another recent thread about this and the final plan was
to simply increase the rx urb size setting to the highest value we are
aware of (see https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg198858.html):
this should solve the babble issue without breaking aggregation.
The change should be simple, I was just waiting to perform some sanity
tests with different models I have. Hope to have it done by this week.
Regards,
Daniele
Bjørn
Hi Daniele,
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 10:35 AM Daniele Palmas [off-list ref] wrote:
there was also another recent thread about this and the final plan was
to simply increase the rx urb size setting to the highest value we are
aware of (see https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg198858.html):
this should solve the babble issue without breaking aggregation.
The change should be simple, I was just waiting to perform some sanity
tests with different models I have. Hope to have it done by this week.
Thanks for letting me know. Looking forward to the patch and dropping
my own work-around :)
Kristian