freebsd stable - Feb 2016 - possible em regression (was Re: svn commit: r294958 - in stable/10: share/man/man4 sys/dev/e1000 sys/dev/ixgb sys/dev/netmap)

On 1/30/2016 12:26 PM, Marius Strobl wrote:
> 
> Ah, okay, that at least makes sense. Can you please verify that with
> the attached patch applied, you have a setup that works out of the
> box?
> 
Hi,
The patch does not apply cleanly


# patch < em_tso_gig_only_10.diff
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|Index: sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c
|==================================================================|---
sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c      (revision 294962)
|+++ sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c      (working copy)
--------------------------
Patching file sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c using Plan A...
Hunk #1 failed at 1377.
1 out of 1 hunks failed--saving rejects to sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c.rej
done

# cat sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c.rej
@@ -1377,8 +1377,15 @@
        ifp->if_hwassist = 0;
        if (ifp->if_capenable & IFCAP_TXCSUM)
                ifp->if_hwassist |= (CSUM_TCP | CSUM_UDP);
-       if (ifp->if_capenable & IFCAP_TSO4)
-               ifp->if_hwassist |= CSUM_TSO;
+       /*
+       ** There have proven to be problems with TSO when not
+       ** at full gigabit speed, so disable the assist automatically
+       ** when at lower speeds.  -jfv
+       */
+       if (ifp->if_capenable & IFCAP_TSO4) {
+               if (adapter->link_speed == SPEED_1000)
+                       ifp->if_hwassist |= CSUM_TSO;
+       }

        /* Configure for OS presence */
        em_init_manageability(adapter);


-- 
-------------------
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400
Sentex Communications, mike at sentex.net
Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net
Cambridge, Ontario Canada   http://www.tancsa.com/

On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 05:11:29PM -0500, Mike Tancsa
wrote:
> On 1/30/2016 12:26 PM, Marius Strobl wrote:
> > 
> > Ah, okay, that at least makes sense. Can you please verify that with
> > the attached patch applied, you have a setup that works out of the
> > box?
> > 
> Hi,
> The patch does not apply cleanly
Hrm, it does here on stable/10. If your checkout is unaltered, the
only thing I can think of is that the patch got corrupted when sent
by e-mail. I've put it online:
https://people.freebsd.org/~marius/em_tso_gig_only_10.diff

marius at alchemy:/home/marius/co/10/src/sys/dev/e1000 > svn info            
Path: .
Working Copy Root Path: /usr/home/marius/co/10/src
URL: svn+ssh://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/10/sys/dev/e1000
Relative URL: ^/stable/10/sys/dev/e1000
Repository Root: svn+ssh://svn.freebsd.org/base
Repository UUID: ccf9f872-aa2e-dd11-9fc8-001c23d0bc1f
Revision: 295130
Node Kind: directory
Schedule: normal
Last Changed Author: marius
Last Changed Rev: 294958
Last Changed Date: 2016-01-27 23:31:08 +0100 (Wed, 27 Jan 2016)

marius at alchemy:/home/marius/co/10/src/sys/dev/e1000 > patch <
~/em_tso_gig_only_10.diff
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|Index: sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c
|==================================================================|---
sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c      (revision 294962)
|+++ sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c      (working copy)
--------------------------
Patching file if_em.c using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 1377.
done