On ma, 13 mei 2019 14:50:10 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > Hi folks! > > what do think about this change? Are there better ways to solve it? > This issue is easy to reproduce if I send 2 (E)TPs in parallel. For example: > > jcat -i /test_100k can0:0x80 :0x90,0x13400 & > jcat -i /test_100k can0:0x80 :0x91,0x12300 & Ah, you made it reproducible. I considered long time ago this would potentially be an issue, but never managed to identify it as a source of problem. I think it's a good improvement, including the remove of this paramter. > > static unsigned int j1939_tp_block = 255; > >-static unsigned int j1939_tp_retry_ms = 20; > > static unsigned int j1939_tp_packet_delay; > > static unsigned int j1939_tp_padding = 1; Kurt
