Re: problems with Tulip driver in 2.2 and 2.4 (true 21143 in 2.2.x, too)

2000-10-20 Thread Clayton Weaver
It is not only the "almost standard" tulip clones that have problems in 2.2.1x. Stock Debian potato (2.2.17-pre6, IIRC) i386 kernel, Kingston KNE100TX w/i21143: works fine in 2.0.38 (.90 driver), hung the kernel solid during an ftp running the potato kernel (100/half-duplex). It was not quite a s

Re: Problems with Tulip driver in 2.2 and 2.4

2000-10-16 Thread Jeff Garzik
"Mike A. Harris" wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > > >> I've noticed this behavior for a few kernel revisions now, up to and > >> including 2.2.17. It would be nice to get this bug worked out before > >> 2.2.18. > > > >I dont think that is likely to happen. Every time someone to

Re: Problems with Tulip driver in 2.2 and 2.4

2000-10-16 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 11:22:09AM +0930, Paul Schulz wrote: > > I'm seeing a similar problem with the Xircom Realport card > which uses the 'xircom_tulip_cb' driver. > > Workaround: > > Putting the card into promiscuous mode seems to get it going again. The fix is been finally merged in pcmc

Re: Problems with Tulip driver in 2.2 and 2.4

2000-10-16 Thread Mike A. Harris
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Alan Cox wrote: >> I've noticed this behavior for a few kernel revisions now, up to and >> including 2.2.17. It would be nice to get this bug worked out before >> 2.2.18. > >I dont think that is likely to happen. Every time someone touches the tulip >driver close to release

Re: Problems with Tulip driver in 2.2 and 2.4

2000-10-16 Thread David Rees
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:16:53AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > I've noticed this behavior for a few kernel revisions now, up to and > > including 2.2.17. It would be nice to get this bug worked out before > > 2.2.18. > > I dont think that is likely to happen. Every time someone touches the tulip

Re: Problems with Tulip driver in 2.2 and 2.4

2000-10-16 Thread Alan Cox
> I've noticed this behavior for a few kernel revisions now, up to and > including 2.2.17. It would be nice to get this bug worked out before > 2.2.18. I dont think that is likely to happen. Every time someone touches the tulip driver close to release they fix one card and break another 8( - T

Re: Problems with Tulip driver in 2.2 and 2.4

2000-10-15 Thread J. S. Connell
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, David Rees wrote: > I've seen similar behavior on the same cards, but it only seems to affect > 100Mbps operation, plugging it into a 10Mbps hub instead of our 3Com > 100Mbps switch will also get things working as does running ifup/ifdown on > the interface. eth0 on my machi

Re: Problems with Tulip driver in 2.2 and 2.4

2000-10-15 Thread David Rees
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 06:25:34PM -0700, J. S. Connell wrote: > Any time I disconnect and then reconnect the ethernet cable from my Netgear > FA310TX cards, the card appears to not notice and doesn't reestablish the > link. Under 2.2.17pre4, the link light comes on, but until I do ifconfig > eth

Re: Problems with Tulip driver in 2.2 and 2.4

2000-10-15 Thread Paul Schulz
I'm seeing a similar problem with the Xircom Realport card which uses the 'xircom_tulip_cb' driver. Workaround: Putting the card into promiscuous mode seems to get it going again. If feels like (but I haven't investigated further) the ARP table isn't being updated properly. This was discovere

Re: Problems with Tulip driver in 2.2 and 2.4

2000-10-15 Thread Jeff Garzik
"J. S. Connell" wrote: > > Any time I disconnect and then reconnect the ethernet cable from my Netgear > FA310TX cards, the card appears to not notice and doesn't reestablish the > link. Under 2.2.17pre4, the link light comes on, but until I do ifconfig > ethX down; ifconfig ethX up, the kernel

Problems with Tulip driver in 2.2 and 2.4

2000-10-15 Thread J. S. Connell
Any time I disconnect and then reconnect the ethernet cable from my Netgear FA310TX cards, the card appears to not notice and doesn't reestablish the link. Under 2.2.17pre4, the link light comes on, but until I do ifconfig ethX down; ifconfig ethX up, the kernel ignores any traffic on that interf