Bug#572201: Further queries

2010-04-07 Thread stephen mulcahy
Ben Hutchings wrote: On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 10:33 +, stephen mulcahy wrote: [...] We will shortly update the official kernel packages to incorporate this release, so you could just wait a day or two and update. However I'm not aware of any changes in 2.6.32.10 that would fix this sort of bug

Bug#572201: Further queries

2010-04-04 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 10:33 +, stephen mulcahy wrote: [...] > > We will shortly update the official kernel packages to incorporate this > > release, so you could just wait a day or two and update. However I'm not > > aware of any changes in 2.6.32.10 that would fix this sort of bug. > > Again

Bug#572201: Further queries

2010-03-16 Thread stephen mulcahy
Ben Hutchings wrote: On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 05:20:32PM +, stephen mulcahy wrote: All pause frames should be dropped, either by the hardware or the driver. So it's not unexpected that these are equal. Ok, thanks for the clarification. It might be interesting to see what happens if you dis

Bug#572201: Further queries

2010-03-15 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 05:20:32PM +, stephen mulcahy wrote: > Hi, > > Any further thoughts on this? > > In the ethtool output, I notice the following > > rx_pause: 46798 > rx_drop_frame: 46798 > > I've checked some other machines and I don't see any of either stat - > possibly because these

Bug#572201: Further queries

2010-03-15 Thread stephen mulcahy
Hi, Any further thoughts on this? In the ethtool output, I notice the following rx_pause: 46798 rx_drop_frame: 46798 I've checked some other machines and I don't see any of either stat - possibly because these are specific to some nic drivers? Anyway, is it normal for those numbers to be the