On Saturday 12 December 2015 22:43:45 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm using a Lenovo TinkPad Edge E135 notebook that has a Realtek wired
> network interface inbuilt. Under some conditions the nic doesn't work after
> changing the mac address.
>
> It
hip to use a hardcoded
> constant. This constant was also used in the old b44 driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Maximilian Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Gary Zambrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tested-by: Maximilian Engelhardt <[E
On Sunday 17 June 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Saturday 16 June 2007 23:27:43 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > [...]
> > ACPI: PCI Interrupt Link [LNKD] enabled at IRQ 10
> > ACPI: PCI Interrupt :02:02.0[A] -> Link [LNKD] -> GSI 10 (level, low)
> >
On Sunday 17 June 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:27:43 +0200
>
> Maximilian Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I recently did some test and found out something interesting about the
> > b44 problem I wrote earlie
Hello,
I recently did some test and found out something interesting about the b44
problem I wrote earlier.
The problem is the following:
When I use my BCM4401 with the b44 driver in wireless-dev I get very high ping
times looking like this:
64 bytes from 172.30.10.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=18
On Monday 04 June 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 21:47:59 +0200
>
> Maximilian Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 04 June 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
On Monday 04 June 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, the following patch makes iperf work better than ever. But are
> > other broken applications going to have same problem. Sounds like the
> > old "who runs first" fork() problems.
>
> this is the fir
On Monday 28 May 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 19:44 +0200, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > > Can you please keep CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS and CONFIG_NOHZ and try the
> > > following combinations on the kernel command line:
> > >
> > >
On Monday 28 May 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 22:55 +0200, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > > > I additionally built my 2.6.22-rc2-mm1 kernel without High Resolution
> > > > Timer, but the high ping problem is still there.
> > >
> &g
On Tuesday 29 May 2007, Gary Zambrano wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 13:55 -0700, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Monday 28 May 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 19:44 +0200, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > > > > Can you pleas
On Monday 28 May 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 19:44 +0200, Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > > Can you please keep CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS and CONFIG_NOHZ and try the
> > > following combinations on the kernel command line:
> > >
> > >
On Monday 28 May 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 17:14 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > The -oldconfig1 is the kernel that had no problems and the other shows
> > > the b44 problem. So if High Resolution Timer Support is disabled
> > > everything works fine and if I enable it
On Monday 28 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> Can you also test the following patch?
> I think there's a bug in b44 that is doesn't properly discard
> shared IRQs, so it might possibly generate a NAPI storm, dunno.
> Worth a try.
>
> Index: linux-2.6.22-rc3/drivers/net/b44.c
>
On Monday 28 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> Can you give 2.6.16 a try? The diff is not that big and we might
> be able to find out what broke if you find out 2.6.16 works.
> You can also try later kernels like .17, .18, .19 to further
> reduce the patch. (You could also git-bisect, if you have t
On Monday 28 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> Ok, another question: On which CPU architecture are you?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ uname -m
i686
Maxi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > 2.6.21.1:
> > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 58414 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> > [ 5] 0.0-60.6 sec 1.13 MBytes157 Kbits/sec
> > [ 4] local 192.
On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 27 May 2007 23:13:32 Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > > 2.6.21.1:
> > > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 58414 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> > &
On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 27 May 2007 22:36:39 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > When I ran 2.6.21.1 or 2.6.22-rc3 without any debugging tools just in
> > normal use I didn't notice any problems. It did work fine as I would
> > expect it.
On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > 2.6.22-rc3:
> >
> > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46557 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> > [ 5] 0.0-60.4 sec 58.9 MBytes 8.18 Mbits/sec
> >
I send this again because my first mail accidently had html code in it and
might have been filtered by some people.
On Saturday 26 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Saturday 26 May 2007 02:24:31 Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Something is broken with the b44 driver in 2.6.22-rc1 or later. Now
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
