On 4 Jul 2009, n...@esperi.org.uk outgrape:
> On 1 Jul 2009, Jesse Brandeburg spake thusly:
>
>> Just FYI, our development tree is internal only for our out of tree
>> driver, but we send patches to the kernel ASAP, after they have passed
>> testing.
>
> Aha! So... is it worth reporting bugs in ma
On 1 Jul 2009, Jesse Brandeburg spake thusly:
> Just FYI, our development tree is internal only for our out of tree
> driver, but we send patches to the kernel ASAP, after they have passed
> testing.
Aha! So... is it worth reporting bugs in mainline that aren't in
evidence when using the out-of-t
@lists.sourceforge.net; Lal
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 2.6.30rc7: ksoftirqd CPU saturation (x86-64 and
x86-32 both) (in-tree e1000e at fault)
On 2 Jun 2009, Waskiewicz Jr said:
> http://e1000.sf.net
What about a git tree so we can use -rc kernels without having to redo
forward-porting work t
On 2 Jun 2009, Waskiewicz Jr said:
> http://e1000.sf.net
What about a git tree so we can use -rc kernels without having to redo
forward-porting work that someone else has probably already done?
There must *be* a dev tree somewhere but so far I've had no success
figuring out where.
-
r.ker...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 12:05 AM
>> To: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 2.6.30rc7: ksoftirqd CPU saturation
>> (x86-64 and x86-32 both) (in-tree e1000e at fault)
>>
>>> My original speculations were wron
009 12:05 AM
> To: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 2.6.30rc7: ksoftirqd CPU saturation (x86-64 and
> x86-32 both) (in-tree e1000e at fault)
>
>> My original speculations were wrong: it goes wrong with 32-bit as well
>> as 64-bit kernels. The key is that it o
http://e1000.sf.net
Cheers,
PJ Waskiewicz
peter.p.waskiewicz...@intel.com
-Original Message-
From: Lal [mailto:learner.ker...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 12:05 AM
To: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 2.6.30rc7: ksoftirqd CPU saturation (x86-64 and
> My original speculations were wrong: it goes wrong with 32-bit as well
> as 64-bit kernels. The key is that it only ever goes wrong with the
> in-tree driver. When I compiled the faulty kernels (32- and 64-bit), I
> forgot to copy the out-of-tree driver into place. Use the out-of-tree
> driver, a
On 1 Jun 2009, David Miller uttered the following:
> From: Nix
> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 01:16:26 +0100
>
>> I plan to try out 2.6.29 (and back to 2.6.25 or thereabouts) tomorrow
>> and see if it ever worked: if it did I'll bisect for it (rendered tricky
>> by the out-of-tree e1000e driver, but do
