On Sunday 29 October 2006 06:06, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> Flooding the console with an RX FIFO overrun error for every single
> dropped packet isn't very sensible. The hardware is very underpowered
> according to today's standards, and RX FIFO overrun errors can be
> triggered quite easily, so don't report them at all.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lennert Buytenhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Index: linux-2.6.19-rc3/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.19-rc3.orig/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> +++ linux-2.6.19-rc3/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> @@ -230,8 +230,9 @@ static int ep93xx_rx(struct net_device *
> " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
>
> if (!(rstat0 & RSTAT0_RWE)) {
> - printk(KERN_NOTICE "ep93xx_rx: receive error "
> - " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
> + if (!(rstat0 & RSTAT_OE))
> + printk(KERN_NOTICE "ep93xx_rx: receive error "
> + " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
>
> ep->stats.rx_errors++;
> if (rstat0 & RSTAT0_OE)
i got a compile error: please s/RSTAT_OE/RSTAT0_OE/ in this patch. Also, is
it possible for any other error bits to be set at the same time as OE? such
bits would not be printed to the log in this case.
ray
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
