"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 touches the tulip
> >driver close to release they fix one card and break another 8(
>
> This might be a good reason to fork the driver code. Linus
> commented before that he'd prefer a fork if it prevented problems
> like this from occuring I believe.
Look at drivers/net/tulip/* in 2.4.x kernels. And submit patches, if
you have an idea :)
For 2.2.x, I am pretty much staying away from tulip.c. For most
chipsets it is rock solid stable, and I have no desire to change it...
For a few new or really elcheapo NIC, you need Don Becker's tulip.c
replacement. Other that that, 2.2.x's tulip.c is golden.
Jeff
-- Jeff Garzik | The difference between laziness and Building 1024 | prioritization is the end result. MandrakeSoft | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 21:00:09 EST