Yes!!!
Now I'm using kernel 2.6.32-trunk-686 from ftp.debian.org.
Network runs perfect in full speed.
Thank you very much.
--
MfG, Joerg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
>
> Perhaps there's a second bug in it (or elsewhere). The bug I could
> reproduce is definitely fixed now. I just re-tested that exact same
> module by running a netperf TCP streaming test:
>
> $ netperf -l 60 -H 10.42.43.10 -t TCP_MAERTS -- -H
> fe80::223:54ff:fe0b:134%2,inet6
> TCP MAERTS TE
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 08:27 +0100, Joerg Pareigis wrote:
> > [...]
> > I've built the module from the sources for the next stable kernel package,
> > including this patch. So try using this:
> > http://womble.decadent.org.uk/tmp/atl1e.ko
> >
> OK, thanks a lot.
> Now I'm using this module.
>
> [...]
> I've built the module from the sources for the next stable kernel package,
> including this patch. So try using this:
> http://womble.decadent.org.uk/tmp/atl1e.ko
>
OK, thanks a lot.
Now I'm using this module.
Unfortunately this module runs not perfect yet.
At first I thought it's O
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 21:22 +0100, Joerg Pareigis wrote:
> Ben Hutchings schrieb:
> > [...]
> >
> > It does; use patch -p1.
> >
> > Ben.
> >
> >
> No, I did use patch -p1.
> patch -p1 patching file drivers/net/atl1e/atl1e_main.c
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 1664.
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 2252.
> 2 out of 2 h
Ben Hutchings schrieb:
[...]
It does; use patch -p1.
Ben.
No, I did use patch -p1.
patch -p1 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
drivers/net/atl1e/atl1e_main.c.rej
Do I use the right source? Because the line-numbers in the patch differs
to my source, I fear this is the pr
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 18:55 +0100, Joerg Pareigis wrote:
> > I prepared my own patch and tested that. However, our general policy is
> > to apply patches that were accepted upstream, so in the end I applied
> > Jie Yang's patch. The critical change is to remove the line
> > 'netdev->features |= N
I prepared my own patch and tested that. However, our general policy is
to apply patches that were accepted upstream, so in the end I applied
Jie Yang's patch. The critical change is to remove the line
'netdev->features |= NETIF_F_TSO6;' which tells the kernel that the
driver supports TSO for
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 12:30 +0100, Joerg Pareigis wrote:
> Ben Hutchings schrieb:
> > On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 02:29 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 21:08 +0100, Joerg Pareigis wrote:
> >>
> >>> Package: linux-image-2.6-686
> >>> Version: 2.6.26-19lenny2
> >>> Module
Ben Hutchings schrieb:
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 02:29 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 21:08 +0100, Joerg Pareigis wrote:
Package: linux-image-2.6-686
Version: 2.6.26-19lenny2
Module: atl1e
IPv4 traffic runs perfect with 100Mbit/s.
Receiving data with IPv6 is also OK.
Bu
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 02:29 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 21:08 +0100, Joerg Pareigis wrote:
> > Package: linux-image-2.6-686
> > Version: 2.6.26-19lenny2
> > Module: atl1e
> >
> > IPv4 traffic runs perfect with 100Mbit/s.
> > Receiving data with IPv6 is also OK.
> > But sen
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 21:08 +0100, Joerg Pareigis wrote:
> Package: linux-image-2.6-686
> Version: 2.6.26-19lenny2
> Module: atl1e
>
> IPv4 traffic runs perfect with 100Mbit/s.
> Receiving data with IPv6 is also OK.
> But sending data is horrible like a 9600 modem line.
> tcpdump on the receiving
Package: linux-image-2.6-686
Version: 2.6.26-19lenny2
Module: atl1e
IPv4 traffic runs perfect with 100Mbit/s.
Receiving data with IPv6 is also OK.
But sending data is horrible like a 9600 modem line.
tcpdump on the receiving host says: IP6 truncated-ip6 - 1426 bytes missing!
see below.
I made a
13 matches
Mail list logo
