John W. Linville wrote:
Any chance you could re-diff this to apply on top of the patch posted
earlier today by Neil Horman?
Sure, but his patch didn't apply to -git8.
If Neil would please resend, then I can diff against that.
-Tommy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Andrew Morton wrote:
Should we also decrease the polling interval? Perhaps only when the cable
is unplugged?
Sounds like a plan. 60 seconds certainly strikes me as being very slow.
OTOH, I'm not aware of the reasoning behind this choice in the first place.
It might make sense for some odd setu
Bogdan Costescu wrote:
I now understood what the problem was, so I'll put it in words for
posterity: the Link Status bit of the MII Status register needs to be
read twice to first clear the error state (link bit=0) after which the
bit reports the actual value of the link. From the manual:
Yes
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 15:35, Bogdan Costescu wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Tommy Christensen wrote:
>
> > The idea is to avoid an extra delay of 60 seconds before detecting
> > link-up.
>
> But you are adding the read to a function that is called repeatedly to
> fix
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 13:58, Bogdan Costescu wrote:
> Can the original poster give an explanation ? I've enjoyed a rather
> well functioning 3c59x driver for the past ~6 years without such
> double reading. Plus:
> - this operation is I/O expensive
> - it is performed inside a region protected by
David S. Miller wrote:
Here is the current patch. It dies on the destruction of the
first TCP socket, while pruning the write queue of the socket,
so something is very wrong in the implementation, I just haven't
had a chance to fully debug it yet.
First thing I'd try is to remove the ! from th
Andrew Morton wrote:
After rebooting, the VLANs on the Intel-based interfaces worked fine, while
the tg3-based interfaces didn't answer to tagged ARP requests. The untagged
VLAN on the tg3-based interfaces was fine as well. When tcpdumping the
subinterfaces, I saw all traffic on the network, and
