On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 08:25:51AM -0800, Josh England wrote:
Everything has MT264328 ConnectX cards using the mlx4_ib driver.
Boot/file servers are using an HP OEM 2.7.000 firmware. Compute nodes
have cards using Sun OEM 2.6.200 FW.
You probably mean MT26428? Anyway, do you still see the
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Eli Cohen e...@dev.mellanox.co.il wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 08:25:51AM -0800, Josh England wrote:
Everything has MT264328 ConnectX cards using the mlx4_ib driver.
Boot/file servers are using an HP OEM 2.7.000 firmware. Compute nodes
have cards using Sun
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:38:38PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
I do worry (as Moni mentioned) that this doesn't explain why you would
get send failures in this case, but the patch itself is well-explained
and looks obviously correct so I think we should apply it.
It could be a problem in the
good debugging, applied thanks.
I do worry (as Moni mentioned) that this doesn't explain why you would
get send failures in this case, but the patch itself is well-explained
and looks obviously correct so I think we should apply it.
--
Roland Dreier rola...@cisco.com
For corporate legal
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 13:38 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
good debugging, applied thanks.
I do worry (as Moni mentioned) that this doesn't explain why you would
get send failures in this case, but the patch itself is well-explained
and looks obviously correct so I think we should apply it.
Sorry, I was referring to my patch not Eli's.
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 13:41 -0800, Ralph Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 13:38 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
good debugging, applied thanks.
I do worry (as Moni mentioned) that this doesn't explain why you would
get send failures in this
Sorry, I was referring to my patch not Eli's.
Heh, I never would have said anything about your patch was obvious.
I skimmed yours once but I do want to read it more carefully.
Did you ever say what test case you are using to provoke the problem you're
fixing?
--
Roland Dreier
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 13:52 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
Sorry, I was referring to my patch not Eli's.
Heh, I never would have said anything about your patch was obvious.
I skimmed yours once but I do want to read it more carefully.
Did you ever say what test case you are using to provoke