Linus,
Could you apply the following patch, please?
Andrey
- Forwarded message from Kai Germaschewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:51:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Kai Germaschewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 06:36:03PM -0700, Dionysius Wilson Almeida wrote:
> I tried inserting a udelay(1) and increasing the count ..but
> the same behaviour.
>
> any clues ? btw, i've been able to compile the redhat 7.1 intel e100
> driver and it works fine for my card.
Your problem is differ
What was the first error message from the driver?
NETDEV WATCHDOG report went before wait_for_cmd_done timeout and is more
important. I wonder if you had some other messages before the watchdog one.
Andrey
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:31:34PM -0700, Dionysius Wilson Almeida wrote:
> And t
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:40:34AM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
>
> I am _very_ willing to devote some time to getting this fixed in both the
> kernel and Donald's drivers if anyone is interested in tracking down the
> problem. I'm not very familiar with the hardware, but I have a test b
Please apply the fix for unpaired lock/unlock_kernel in fs/locks.c
Andrey
--- fs/locks.c~ Fri Jun 15 17:14:05 2001
+++ fs/locks.c Fri Jun 15 19:16:31 2001
@@ -856,7 +856,7 @@
new_fl2 = locks_alloc_lock(0);
error = -ENOLCK; /* "no luck" */
if (!(new_fl && new_fl2)
Hi,
It's not a bug, it's willful.
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 05:08:25PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> I am writing a transparent-proxy-like application, that needs to be able to
> bind a TCP socket with a non-local address (i.e., the proxy contacts the
> origin-server, in the local network, pretendi
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 09:25:46PM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:18:37 + (GMT), Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2.2.19pre15
> [...]
> > o EEpro100 posted writes fix (Ion Badulescu)
>
> All the cr
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 07:14:09AM +, angelcode wrote:
> I've been seeing the same kind of messages with an eepro100
> but they don't happen when the module is loaded. They
> happen after it has been running for a few days. I am
> running 2.4.1. I haven't seen any real problems but these
If it's a VALinux computer, contact them.
They've made some progress in tracking different eepro100 problems.
Andrey
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 08:32:07PM +0200, Ionut Dumitrache wrote:
> The integrated LAN on Intel boards with i815 chipset
> apparently is not fully supported. In l
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:18:37PM +0900, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> 00:0c.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557 (rev 08)
> 00:0d.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557 (rev 08)
It's i82559.
It can't have that original bug which is checked by those EEPROM bits and
workaround for w
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:30:48PM +0900, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:00:34AM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> > > Augustin, could you send the output of `lspci' and `eepro100-diag -ee', please?
> > > (The latter may be taken from ftp://scyld.com/pub/diag/)
> >
> > I'd be cu
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:21:06AM +1100, CaT wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 03:14:09PM +1100, CaT wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 09:26:38AM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:40:33PM +1100, CaT wrote:
> > > [snip]
> >
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:40:33PM +1100, CaT wrote:
[snip]
> Feb 11 22:30:18 theirongiant kernel: eepro100: cmd_wait for(0x70) timedout
>with(0x70)!
Please try the attached patch.
Actually, it's designed to solve another problem, but may be your one has the
same origin as that other.
Best rega
Ion,
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:26:51AM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 20:15:39 +0900, Augustin Vidovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> eth0: Sending a multicast list set command from a timer routine."
> >>
> >> If you find such messages, the work-around really did s
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:42:52AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> > It's the printk that gets it wrong, although that's harmless.
> > Intel's documentation states that the bug does NOT exist if the
> > bits 0 and 1 in eeprom[3] are 1. Thus, the workaround is correct,
> > the printk is wrong.
>
> So why
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0700, Micah Gorrell wrote:
> As stated in a number of previous messages to this list many people have had
> serious problems with the eepro100 driver in 2.4. These problems where not
> there in 2.2 and it is not a select few machines showing this so I very much
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:20:03PM -0700, Micah Gorrell wrote:
> I have doing some testing with kernel 2.4 and I have had constant problems
> with the eepro100 driver. Under 2.2 it works perfectly but under 2.4 I am
> unable to use more than one card in a server and when I do use one card
Hello,
Here is a patch with important eepro100 fixes for 2.4 kernel:
- Big-endian fixes (double cpu->bus conversion).
- "card reports no resources" hardware timing bug workaround.
Thanks to Donald Becker.
It may also fix a problem with "wait_for_cmd_done timeout" symptom.
Best regards
cott Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Andrey Savochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EEPRO100 Power Management problem?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; mical
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 07:02:52PM -0800, Kostas Nikoloudakis wrote:
> Jan 16 00:49:04 cd20 kernel: eth0: card reports no resources.
> Jan 16 00:49:06 cd20 kernel: eth0: can't fill rx buffer (force 0)!
The driver can't allocate buffers for incoming packets.
Increase /proc/sys/vm/freepages numbe
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:42:50PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:17:31PM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
[snip]
> > These two line are a workaround for the RxAddrLoad timing bug,
> > developed by Donald Becker. wait_for_cmd_done timeouts may be r
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:10:11PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> We have a server running 2.2.18 + RAID which has an eepro100 in it.
> It's connected to a Dlink DFE 816 100 16port 100baseTX hub.
>
> When the machine boots we get a whole series of timeout errors.
>
> Jan 18 11:58:09 miguet k
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:52:19AM -0800, Tom Murphy wrote:
>Also, regarding the eepro100 driver, are there any plans to fix
> support for the following chipset (given by lspci):
>
[snip]
> I have one of these at work and I will get the following messages:
>
> Dec 11 10:46:13 morph
Hello,
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:13:27AM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>
> > > There is nothing relevant in the errata, unfortunately...
> >
> > Do you have it?
>
> I have the manual in the office, so I can look
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:45:24PM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:51:09 +0800, Andrey Savochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've been promised that this issue would be looked up in Intel's errata by
> > people who had the a
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:41:11PM +0100, Udo A. Steinberg wrote:
> I've been using an older EEPro100/B card until now and it's been working without any
> problems ever since the transmitter bugs were fixed. The boot output looked like
>this:
[snip]
> Today I've installed a new model with
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 09:28:44AM -0500, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
> Was running 2.2.15pre18 with no eepro problems.
> Upgraded to 2.2.18pre20 and started experiencing transmit timed out errors
> a day into the boot. eth0 was unresponsive in/out. down/uping the
> interface had no effect.
Hello,
I've updated eepro100 driver for 2.4 kernel branch.
So far, the most annoying initialization problem (expressing itself in "card
reports no resources" messages) hasn't been fixed.
The driver is available at
ftp://ftp.sw.com.sg/pub/Linux/people/saw/kernel/v2.4/eepro100.c
The main changes
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:18:25PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> There is a flaw in the eepro100 driver that apparently doesnt initialise
> something properly. The problem is exasperated by the fact that the
If one want to say it politely, the driver and the hardware sometimes
disagree about t
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 04:24:12PM -0800, Allen, David B wrote:
> FWIW, I have a dual-proc SuperMicro motherboard P3DM3 with integrated
> Adaptec SCSI and Intel 8255x built-in NIC.
>
> Sometimes on a cold boot I get the "kernel: eth0: card reports no RX
> buffers" that repeats, but if I f
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 06:30:32PM +0100, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
> BTW, I wanted to take a look at the frequently mentioned beancounter patch,
> here is the current state,
> http://www.asp-linux.com/en/products/ubpatch.shtml
> "Sorry, due to growing expenses for support of publ
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 04:14:39PM -0800, Robert Lynch wrote:
> No oops, but right after I installed test11-pre1, then tried to
> access a Windows box as a VNC client, this message started
> getting continuously dumped by syslog:
> ===
> ...
> Nov 8 15:32:01 ives kernel: eth0: card report
Hello,
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 02:32:44PM -0500, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
[snip]
> Also, here's a possibly useless personal note WRT the
> eepro100 resource msgs, FWIW: I was recently using remote
> KGDB to work on an unrelated problem on an MP Pentium
> box with integrated eepro100. Whenever I'
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 07:35:08PM +0300, Ville Herva wrote:
> Markus Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Oct 26 11:24:13 ns29 kernel: eth0: card reports no resources.
> > > Oct 26 11:24:15 ns29 kernel: eth0: card reports no resources.
> > > Oct 26 12:22:21 ns29 kernel: eth0: ca
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:50:29AM -0700, David Lang wrote:
> I was thinking about this problem late last week and would like to throw
> out a off-the-wall proposal.
>
> for a dedicated server (no end-user logins) how about making a kernel
> compile option that removes the 'only root can bind to
Hello,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 05:23:10PM +1000, Cefiar wrote:
>
> I'm happy with that - still produces the required effect and removes bloat
> from kernel space. Also means it should be easy to revert to default behavior.
>
> My original idea was basically a wrapper much like the way chroot w
[cc list trimmed]
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 09:52:30PM +1000, Cefiar wrote:
[snip]
> ... what is really necessary,
> which is to simply not allow the programs to bind to the addresses in the
> first place. Unfortunately to implement this sort of thing in god knows how
> many user space programs
fast but the onboard eepro100
> interface, often, doesn't work. This starts to look like eepro100-driver
> related so I copied Andrey Savochkin. Btw, one of my colleagues also
> reported a similar situation on his quad Xeon with 6G RAM whereby one of
> the eepro100 interfaces wa
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 09:25:47PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:34:30 +0800
>From: Andrey Savochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>page_table_lock is supposed to protect normal page table activity (like
>what's done in page fault
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:20:23AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 9. To Do
> > * mm->rss is modified in some places without holding the
> > page_table_lock (sct)
>
> Any of the mm gurus give the patch below a quick once over ?
> Is this adequate, or is there more to this th
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 02:16:56PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> Patch: eepro100-speedo-debug-1
> From: Dragan Stancevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Debugging tweaks for eepro100 driver:
> * Add ioctl to adjust speedo_debug.
> * Print diagnostic when Tx ring fills up.
> * Adjust debugging level
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 12:45:47PM -0700, LA Walsh wrote:
> Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever been any
> thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?. I was on a
> server with 4 CPU's but only 2 SCSI disks. Many times I'll see 4 processes
> on disk wait,
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 01:55:52PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> >
> > It's a waste of resources to reserve memory+swap for the case that every
> > running process decides to modify libc code (and, thus, should recei
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 11:45:02AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
[snip]
> "Overcommit" to me is the same things as Mark Hemment stated earlier in this
> thread -- the "fact that the system has over committed its memory resources.
> ie. it has sold too many tickets for the number of seats in the plan
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 01:10:30PM +0100, Mark Hemment wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > So you have run out of physical memory --- what do you do about it?
>
> Why let the system get into the state where it is neccessary to kill a
> process?
> Per-user/t
Greg,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 11:42:11PM -0700, Greg Zhang wrote:
> I need to update the MAC address on a Intel 82559 ethernet card.
> Tried:
>
> # ifconfig eth0 down
> # ifconfig eth0 hw ether0 xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
> # ifconfig eth0 up
>
> It seems to take effect. Ping works. I have not had time
ow).
I spent 3 full evenings last week working on this matter, no luck so far.
> > 2.2.17pre16
> [...]
> > o Switch eepro100 to I/O mode pending investigation
> > (Andrey Savochkin)
Best regards
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 03:09:37PM -0500, Michael J. Dikkema wrote:
>
> Is the Intel 82562ET Supported by the EtherExpress driver in the kernel,
> or is it neccessary to use the e100 driver provided by intel? I'm trying
> to talk a client through getting his network card working and don't have
>
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 06:31:34PM +0600, Andrey G. Kaplanov wrote:
> Respected colleagues!
>
> I have are problem of send SCM_RIGHTS message
> through AF_UNIX socket.
> Below - examples of server and client sources.
> Sendmsg gives an error : Invalid argument.
> That I do;make wrong?
Null poin
Hello,
I've uploaded the new version of user beancounter patch which introduces
control of system resources and protection for users against misbehavior of
other user's processes.
The recent changes include:
- new memory accounting (including pro rata accounting for shared pages) and
guarant
Stephen,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:55:06AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> In 2.2.17pre20 I started running into *really* annoying issues w/ an
> eepro100, I'm going to go back to 2.2.16 and see if they clear up. Basically
> things were constantly seeming to stall for me. Not everything th
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:41:46AM -0400, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > But I expected 2.2.17pre20 to work, it contains a work-around which helped
> > all other people complaining about the same things.
>
> is it fixed in 2.2.1
it to Linus, but wasn't included in the kernel.
I'll try to work more on this problem this weekend and submit the new code.
Best regards
Andrey V.
Savochkin
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
[
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 02:57:54PM -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
>
> I'm having endless problem with an eepro100 here. After some trying found out
> that doing a soft reset (ctrl+alt+del) fixed the problem, and that a power
> cycle made it happen again.
>
> Kernel version is 2.2.17p
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:22:31AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:06:15PM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > So, I think that we have to be sure that we use the "best" address for this
> > destination.
> > What about an uncondition
Andi,
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:45:06AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:22:42AM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > Andi, there may be two reasons of this behavior:
> > 1. skb that triggered ARP request had a.b.c.1 source, either because
> >a) the
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 01:05:02PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 12:28:00PM +1100, David Luyer wrote:
[snip]
> > Now when the Linux box a.b.c.1 (with secondary address d.e.f.1) wants to
> > talk to the BSD/OS system d.e.f.2 it does
> >
> > a.b.c.1 arp who-has d.e.f.2
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 05:47:01PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Things like random memory corruption from dropping dirty bits,
> > and some of the others are far more serious showstoppers alas
>
> Indeed, there are 4 major issues left in the VM area
Hello,
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 12:28:00PM +1100, David Luyer wrote:
[snip]
> We have a number of Linux hosts on this backbone with a primary address in
> the network a.b.c.0/24 and a secondary address in the network d.e.f.0/24.
[snip]
> a.b.c.1 arp who-has d.e.f.2
>
[snip]
> Is this already
59 matches
Mail list logo
