kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> > That _sounds_ reasonably, I agree, but eepro100 gets tx timeouts very
> > frequently if the access to "status" is not atomic.
>
> Could you try to answer another, simpler, question?
> Namely, why is the question raised now?
>
> Softnet did not introduce _anything_ new to this area.
> Even 2.3.15 did not this. If eepro100 fails now,
> it always (including 2.2) failed _exactly_ with the same frequency.
(off-list)
Some bug reports to linux-kernel, and my own experience testing 8139too,
seem to say otherwise...
I got _constant_ timeouts on UP until I updated the 8139too interrupt
handler from
if (tx buffer not full) {
tx_full=0;
netif_wake_queue(dev);
}
to
if (tx buffer not full) {
tx_full = 0;
}
if (tx_full)
netif_wake_queue(dev);
else
netif_stop_queue(dev);
Regards,
Jeff
-- Jeff Garzik | "Vegetarian" is the Indian word Building 1024 | for 'lousy hunter.' MandrakeSoft, Inc. |- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:25 EST