On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:38:28PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
>
> I get a backtrace as it probes each e1000 device and I also still get
> the unexpected interrupt message.
>
>
> WARNING: at drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c:1331 e1000_sw_init()
Thanks for testing!
Although I still don't know what
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 08:10 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:16:09AM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> >
> > # dmesg | grep e1000
> > e1000: :01:02.0: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:66MHz:64-bit) 00:15:60:04:d7:f8
> > e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
> > e100
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:54:31AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
so how about calling netif_poll_disable() before we register the net_device?
Yes that should work. Let's move the other two netif_ calls while we're
at it.
well no, if we make the watchdog (this is something I've a
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:16:09AM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
>
> # dmesg | grep e1000
> e1000: :01:02.0: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:66MHz:64-bit) 00:15:60:04:d7:f8
> e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
> e1000: :01:02.1: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:66MHz:64-bit) 00:15:60:04:d7
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:23:24AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
e1000: :01:02.0: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:66MHz:64-bit) 00:15:60:04:d7:f8
e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
e1000: :01:02.1: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:66MHz:64-bit) 00:15:60:04:d7:f9
e1000: eth
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:54:31AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>
> so how about calling netif_poll_disable() before we register the net_device?
Yes that should work. Let's move the other two netif_ calls while we're
at it.
> well no, if we make the watchdog (this is something I've already
> imple
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:23:24AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>
> >e1000: :01:02.0: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:66MHz:64-bit) 00:15:60:04:d7:f8
> >e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
> >e1000: :01:02.1: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:66MHz:64-bit) 00:15:60:04:d7:f9
> >e1000: eth1: e100
Doug Chapman wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 11:08 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:22:30PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
but once again broken just yesterday by the following commit. I have
backed just this commit out and verified I no longer panic.
Hmm, the only way I can see t
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 11:08 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:22:30PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> >
> > but once again broken just yesterday by the following commit. I have
> > backed just this commit out and verified I no longer panic.
>
> Hmm, the only way I can see this h
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:51:14PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
this has been an age-old confusion that I never grasped either, so I
perfectly understand why you added the explicit e1000_disable_irq call in
the other patch (and think thats a great idea). But really, there should be
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:51:14PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>
> this has been an age-old confusion that I never grasped either, so I
> perfectly understand why you added the explicit e1000_disable_irq call in
> the other patch (and think thats a great idea). But really, there should be
> a way f
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 03:57:13PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
Hmm, we're making a mess of it.
Indeed :)
Herbert, wouldn't it just have been a lot easier to do just add a
netif_poll_disable in e1000_probe, so that any and all other poll
enable/disables are symmetric ? Somethin
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:22:30PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
>
> but once again broken just yesterday by the following commit. I have
> backed just this commit out and verified I no longer panic.
Hmm, the only way I can see this happening is if the hardware signals
an interrupt even though we'v
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 03:57:13PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>
> Hmm, we're making a mess of it.
Indeed :)
> Herbert, wouldn't it just have been a lot easier to do just add a
> netif_poll_disable in e1000_probe, so that any and all other poll
> enable/disables are symmetric ? Something like this
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 15:57 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> Doug Chapman wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I reported this a few weeks ago and it was fixed but it appears the
> > offending code was again re-submitted. This causes a panic on HP
> > Integrity servers and from what I hear many other platforms using
Doug Chapman wrote:
All,
I reported this a few weeks ago and it was fixed but it appears the
offending code was again re-submitted. This causes a panic on HP
Integrity servers and from what I hear many other platforms using e1000
as well.
My original report was via kernel.org BZ:
http://bugzil
All,
I reported this a few weeks ago and it was fixed but it appears the
offending code was again re-submitted. This causes a panic on HP
Integrity servers and from what I hear many other platforms using e1000
as well.
My original report was via kernel.org BZ:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug
17 matches
Mail list logo
