Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 7962] New: oops in port_carrier_check

2007-02-11 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:52:04AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:42:11 +0100 > Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 07-02-2007 23:09, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:52:16 -0800 > > > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > >

Re: forcedeth problems on 2.6.20-rc6-mm3

2007-02-11 Thread Tobias Diedrich
Jeff Garzik wrote: > Tobias Diedrich wrote: > >Tobias Diedrich wrote: > >>Ayaz Abdulla wrote: > >>>For all those who are having issues, please try out the attached patch. > >>Will try. > > > >Does not apply cleanly against 2.6.20, is this one fixed up right? > > It probably needs to be top of 2.6.

Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 7974] New: BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0x10000100/0

2007-02-11 Thread Herbert Xu
Francois Romieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > diff --git a/net/core/rtnetlink.c b/net/core/rtnetlink.c > index e76539a..a4bcfe2 100644 > --- a/net/core/rtnetlink.c > +++ b/net/core/rtnetlink.c > @@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ void rtmsg_ifinfo(int type, struct net_device *dev, > unsigned change) >s

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: no DMFE maintainer

2007-02-11 Thread Maxim
On Saturday 10 February 2007 00:54:04 Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:45:12 -0500 Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Tobias wrote that he no longer maintains this driver and requested > > > to be removed from MAINTAINERS.

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: no DMFE maintainer

2007-02-11 Thread Maxim
On Saturday 10 February 2007 00:54:04 Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:45:12 -0500 Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Tobias wrote that he no longer maintains this driver and requested > > > to be removed from MAINTAINERS.

Re: [PATCH] [NETDEV] [000] dmfe : fix bugs and add features

2007-02-11 Thread Maxim
On Friday 09 February 2007 23:15:26 Jeff Garzik wrote: > Levitsky Maxim wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Before some time I decided to fix suspend/resume on my Davicom network > > card. During development I also fixed couple of bugs and added support > > for link detection and WOL Note : 2.6.20 already ha

Re: [PATCH] [NETDEV] [004] dmfe : Add suspend/resume support

2007-02-11 Thread Maxim
On Friday 09 February 2007 22:54:52 Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > From: Maxim Levitsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [PATCH] [NETDEV] [004] dmfe : Add suspend/resume support > > > > Adds support for suspend/resume > > Patch looks ok, but your mailer damaged it heavily. > > > --- linux-2.6.20-m

[patch] bugfixes and new hardware support for arcnet driver

2007-02-11 Thread Jeff Morrow
The modifications and bug fixes noted below were done by Realtime Control Works and Contemporary Control Systems, Inc, Jan 2005. They were incorporated into the 2.6 kernel by Jeff Morrow of Sierra Analytics, Feb 2007. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The changes have been tested on a Contemporary Controls P

skge dysfunction on Amd X2 machine with 4GB memory

2007-02-11 Thread Matti Aarnio
With the skge driver there seems to be some sort of problem to work in a system with memory above the 4 GB of PCI address space. System doesn't crash (not outright anyway) with skge, but that network interface just doesn't function. My box has also forcedeth network interface, which works just

Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx: Fix code for spec changes of 2/7/2007

2007-02-11 Thread Johannes Berg
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 21:32 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:26:25PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote: > > > My plan is to continue to maintain bcm43xx-SoftMAC for at least the BPHY > > and 4306 revisions even > > after d80211 becomes the in-kernel driver. Of course, I hope tha

Re: [ANNOUNCE] d80211 based driver for Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG

2007-02-11 Thread Johannes Berg
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 14:23 +0100, Hesse, Christian wrote: > The driver generates two network devices. The second one is for promicious > mode? Is there any chance to disable the interface? The second one is the so-called "master" interface which is used for QoS stuff. We're working on hiding it