On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 04:40:44PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> I am continually amazed at how secure an "open source" OS is in
> comparison to W2K. Relative to the W2K open source arguments, one
> good fallout would be that folks would be able to identify
> holes like this one quickly.
Hmmm
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:00:26PM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
>
> > 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
>
> By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
> the GPL are 'good' pieces of
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:21:36PM -0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> 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 `
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 curious to see them too.
Ok, here is the output (the status are displayed onl
, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
2- in that case, it's not the software, but the hardware which
was locking up under load
In addition, it would have been impossible to fix the problem if the code
wa
.
> Please read the code if you don't believe me.
I read it, but I don't have the Intel docs, so I miss the information you
have.
Thank you for spending time for this problem.
--
Augustin Vidovic http://www.vidovic.org/augustin/
"Nous sommes tous quelque ch
ou post the original log messages, we might be able to find the real
> bug...
Sorry, I can't, as they were suppressed (as you can see in the example
I copy-pasted before in this mail), and now I don't get any other one.
> [and please don't drop the Cc:]
Ok, if you insist.
t command from a timer routine."
>
> If you find such messages, the work-around really did something. Otherwise,
> it's the placebo effect...
Now, I do not get _any_ message in the logs, which means that the network
cards activity is closer to normality than before
the logs,
so maybe the problem has been fixed.
Now, as Ion says, maybe it is not the "receiver lock-up bug" itself which is
worked-around, frankly I don't know.
--
Augustin Vidovic http://www.vidovic.org/augustin/
"Nous sommes tous quelque chose de naissance, musicien ou assassin,
mais il faut apprendre le maniement de la harpe ou du couteau."
mrtg.png
is wrong : it seems
that the bug showed up also with the network cards used in my boxes,
and the patch I proposed seemed to fix that problem.
--
Augustin Vidovic http://www.vidovic.org/augustin/
"Nous sommes tous quelque chose de naissance, musicien ou assassin,
mais il faut
if (sp->rx_bug)
printk(KERN_INFO " Receiver lock-up workaround activated.\n");
I don't understand why the tests for the diagnostic and for the
workaround activation were different. Maybe a simple bug, but maybe there
was an obscure reason. I someone knows...
--
A
11 matches
Mail list logo
