Hi,
Sorry for the long long delay...
On 2016/07/06 15:55, Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
> I got a Latitude E6400 via an auction. I tried -current and it
> worked with MSI. While checking your dmesg, I noticed that you
> didn't use ACPI. I tried without ACPI and I could reproduce the
> problem.
In article ,
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
>Tom Ivar Helbekkmo writes:
>
>> Christos Zoulas writes:
>>
>>> Right now it seems to be a good time to upgrade for example...
>>
>> That's what I'm
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo writes:
> Christos Zoulas writes:
>
>> Right now it seems to be a good time to upgrade for example...
>
> That's what I'm hoping for - I started a couple of hours ago. :)
Didn't go so well. My main machine does routing between
Christos Zoulas writes:
> Right now it seems to be a good time to upgrade for example...
That's what I'm hoping for - I started a couple of hours ago. :)
-tih
--
Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the significance
of Lisp. Lisp is the most
On Jan 21, 8:13am, t...@hamartun.priv.no (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: wm devices don't work under current amd64
| I guess I worded that a bit clumsily. :) I meant that there seem to be
| a number of rather deep changes going on, accompanied by more reports of
| crashes than I'm
Christos Zoulas writes:
> I don't know about that. It is pretty stable with me...
I guess I worded that a bit clumsily. :) I meant that there seem to be
a number of rather deep changes going on, accompanied by more reports of
crashes than I'm used to seeing on
In article ,
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
>Christos Zoulas writes:
>
>> Perhaps we want a lock?
>
>OK, that makes sense - and might explain why my problem returned.
>(Especially as it's not quite the same as
Christos Zoulas writes:
> Perhaps we want a lock?
OK, that makes sense - and might explain why my problem returned.
(Especially as it's not quite the same as before, and the differences
may well be locking related.) But should I pursue this on 7.99.39, or
should I upgrade
In article ,
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
>Tom Ivar Helbekkmo writes:
>
>> Masanobu SAITOH writes:
>>
>>> Please test the latest -current. knakahara found a problem:
>>
>> That worked fine!
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo writes:
> However, another amd64 system that doesn't use VLANs, and is an NFS
> client, is unable to write to NFS file systems if it runs a kernel
> with the patch applied.
Don't mind me - after a little while, the problem returned on this
system, even
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo writes:
> Masanobu SAITOH writes:
>
>> Please test the latest -current. knakahara found a problem:
>
> That worked fine! No longer any need for the tcpdump hack. :)
>
> (I didn't get the latest -current; I just added those patches
On 2017/01/14 2:03, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
Please test the latest -current. knakahara found a problem:
That worked fine! No longer any need for the tcpdump hack. :)
(I didn't get the latest -current; I just added those patches to 7.99.39.)
On 2017/01/14 6:43, Jarle Greipsland wrote:
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
On 2016/11/28 17:16, Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
Hello, Jarle.
On 2016/11/27 0:45, Jarle Greipsland wrote:
[ ... ]
Was this problem ever fixed?
Perhaps no. I've added a lot of changes into if_wm.c, but
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> On 2016/11/28 17:16, Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
>> Hello, Jarle.
>>
>> On 2016/11/27 0:45, Jarle Greipsland wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> Was this problem ever fixed?
>>
>> Perhaps no. I've added a lot of changes into if_wm.c, but I've not
>> touched vlan related
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> Please test the latest -current. knakahara found a problem:
That worked fine! No longer any need for the tcpdump hack. :)
(I didn't get the latest -current; I just added those patches to 7.99.39.)
-tih
--
Most people who graduate with CS
On 2016/11/28 17:16, Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
Hello, Jarle.
On 2016/11/27 0:45, Jarle Greipsland wrote:
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
Hi.
On 2016/03/07 21:12, Tobias Nygren wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:57:02 +0900
Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
One of the
Hello, Jarle.
On 2016/11/27 0:45, Jarle Greipsland wrote:
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
Hi.
On 2016/03/07 21:12, Tobias Nygren wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:57:02 +0900
Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
One of the possibility is that the multicast filter table and
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> Hi.
>
> On 2016/03/07 21:12, Tobias Nygren wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:57:02 +0900
>> Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
>>
>>> One of the possibility is that the multicast filter table and broadcast
>>> bit in a register aren't set
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo writes:
> Now I can build a kernel that'll try to use MSI with the wm0 on it.
With the updated BIOS, and ACPI enabled, MSI works fine on my wm0. :)
Note to self: always update the BIOS *first*, then look for other
possible problems.
-tih
--
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> I tried the latest -current and it didn't crash. Could you retry?
Never mind - I fixed it: I thought I'd upgraded the BIOS on this laptop
recently, but it turns out it was running a really old one. Flashing
the latest version available from Dell
On 2016/07/06 18:06, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
I got a Latitude E6400 via an auction. I tried -current and it
worked with MSI. While checking your dmesg, I noticed that you
didn't use ACPI. I tried without ACPI and I could reproduce the
problem.
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> I got a Latitude E6400 via an auction. I tried -current and it
> worked with MSI. While checking your dmesg, I noticed that you
> didn't use ACPI. I tried without ACPI and I could reproduce the
> problem. Without ACPI, any ioapic isn't attached.
Hi.
Sorry for the long delay.
On 2016/03/10 4:26, SAITOH Masanobu wrote:
Hi, Tom.
On 2016/03/10 4:12, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
SAITOH Masanobu writes:
You mean your machine works with INTx but it doesn't work on MSI, right?
That is correct.
If so, could you show
I wrote:
> This is the laptop, which doesn't use vlans. The other machine, the
> Poweredge 2650, is my main server, and does all its networking over a
> vlan trunk on its wm0 interface. I suspect that its problem is
> different, since it works with a -current from October 10th, whereas
> the
SAITOH Masanobu writes:
> I'm sorry that I'm busy because AsiaBSDCon starts today and I'll be
> absent the next one week from Tokyo.
Enjoy! I'll play some more with this stuff while you're away, and see
if I can narrow down the problem with the 2650 a bit.
-tih
--
Hi, Tom.
On 2016/03/10 4:12, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> SAITOH Masanobu writes:
>
>> You mean your machine works with INTx but it doesn't work on MSI, right?
>
> That is correct.
>
>> If so, could you show the full dmesg of the machine?
>
> Appended below.
>
>> And,
SAITOH Masanobu writes:
> You mean your machine works with INTx but it doesn't work on MSI, right?
That is correct.
> If so, could you show the full dmesg of the machine?
Appended below.
> And, did you test if your machine's problem does occur "without" vlan?
This is
Hi.
On 2016/03/10 2:40, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> Masanobu SAITOH writes:
>
>> A bug must be exist. sborrill@ repored vlan related probem before. One of
>> the problem is that I can't reproduce the problem with my machines...
>> If I can reproduce the problem with my
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> A bug must be exist. sborrill@ repored vlan related probem before. One of
> the problem is that I can't reproduce the problem with my machines...
> If I can reproduce the problem with my machine, I can fix it...
Well, I know a bit more about the
On Mar 8, 8:29am, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
} John Nemeth writes:
}
} > The 2924 is an old switch so it may behave funny.
}
} Yeah, the most common problem with these old Ciscos is that the
} autoconfiguration randomly fails -- sometimes after having worked well
} again and
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
The 2924 is an old switch so it may behave funny.
Yeah, the most common problem with these old Ciscos is that the
autoconfiguration randomly fails -- sometimes after having worked well
again and again for a long time.
Those are the same switches
John Nemeth writes:
> The 2924 is an old switch so it may behave funny.
Yeah, the most common problem with these old Ciscos is that the
autoconfiguration randomly fails -- sometimes after having worked well
again and again for a long time.
> Could you set both ends to
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> Is it possible to test with 7.0(RELEASE) and the latest snapshot
> of netbsd-7 branch?
I just did, and the wm0 interface of my Dell Aptitude E6400 laptop works
just fine with both of those. A final clean boot from a 7.99.26 install
CD once again
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> If I can reproduce the problem with my machine, I can fix it...
I'd be happy to apply a patch to create some debug output, for instance...
-tih
--
Elections cannot be allowed to change anything. --Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> On 2016/03/07 21:12, Tobias Nygren wrote:
>> [...]
>> I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion, but I have a wm(4)
>> device (8086:1502) on -current that does not work after boot. It comes
>> to life only after running "tcpdump -n -i wm0"
Hi, Tom.
On 2016/03/07 21:34, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
Is the port connecting 100BaseT switch or gigabit switch.
It's connected to a Cisco 2924 VLAN switch, and both the switch port and
the wm0 device on the laptop are explicitly configured
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> Is the port connecting 100BaseT switch or gigabit switch.
It's connected to a Cisco 2924 VLAN switch, and both the switch port and
the wm0 device on the laptop are explicitly configured for 100/full.
> Are you using dhcpcd? Have you tried with
Hi.
On 2016/03/07 21:12, Tobias Nygren wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:57:02 +0900
Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
One of the possibility is that the multicast filter table and broadcast
bit in a register aren't set correctly on ICH9.
I'm not sure if this is relevant to the
On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:57:02 +0900
Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
> One of the possibility is that the multicast filter table and broadcast
> bit in a register aren't set correctly on ICH9.
I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion, but I have a wm(4)
device (8086:1502) on
Hi, Tom.
On 2016/03/07 20:42, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
0) Did you check /var/log/message if device timouts occured?
No timeouts. Everything behaves as if there were no incoming traffic.
1) Is Intel AMT set to enable by BIOS?
No, it's
Masanobu SAITOH writes:
> 0) Did you check /var/log/message if device timouts occured?
No timeouts. Everything behaves as if there were no incoming traffic.
> 1) Is Intel AMT set to enable by BIOS?
No, it's not.
> 2) Could you show me the output of "ifconfig -v wm0"
Hi.
On 2016/03/07 19:35, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
I've recently set up a Dell E6400 laptop with NetBSD, and it's working
great - over WiFi. The built-in wm ethernet interface doesn't work. It
can send packets out, but can't receive anything.
0) Did you check /var/log/message if device
I've recently set up a Dell E6400 laptop with NetBSD, and it's working
great - over WiFi. The built-in wm ethernet interface doesn't work. It
can send packets out, but can't receive anything. I tried booting Linux
on the laptop, and it has no trouble with it. Here's the device:
wm0 at pci0
43 matches
Mail list logo