On di, 08 okt 2019 19:54:33 +0200, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > 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. I observed a CAN overflow, which should not have occured. I'll investigate a bit further. Kurt
