On di, 08 okt 2019 15:55:35 +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 10/8/19 2:59 PM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > > On di, 08 okt 2019 13:30:12 +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > >> On 10/8/19 1:12 PM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > >>> On di, 08 okt 2019 12:39:45 +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > >>>> On 10/8/19 12:32 PM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > >>>>> On di, 08 okt 2019 10:32:18 +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/8/19 10:24 AM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Tnx. Can you test the c_can branch from linux-can-next? > >>> > >>> That's the hard part, I can not advance kernel version at this point. > >>> So a long-term test is out of question at this point. > >>> > >>> Funcionally, the rx-offload patch does the same as my inplace fifo patch > >>> and that worked fine. > >>> > >>> I'll see where I can get with a bench test. > >> > >> You're using v4.9? I can backport all needed patches. > > > > Yes, v4.9. > > > > If you would be able to backport them, then I add them here and I'll > > test. That's probably the easiest. > > try: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mkl/linux-can-next.git/log/?h=for-kurt Thanks for the backport. It compiles and CAN works. I put it on a test machine now, but since it's logically equivalent to my ad-hoc skb_queue, I expect no long-term surprises. My test machine may need no to stop due to bad weather conditions. Kind regards, Kurt
