Re: Problem with 2.4.24 e1000 and keepalived

[Stephan von Krawczynski]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:00:42 -0800
Jonathan Lundell <jlundell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> At 1:45am +0100 1/9/04, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >  > It's unfortunate that the two conditions are conflated by most net
> >  > drivers.
> >
> >IMHO, saying "most net drivers" is unfair : tg3, tulip, 3c59x, starfire,
> >realtek, sis900, dl2k, pcnet32, and IIRC sunhme are OK. eepro100 is nearly
> >OK but has this annoying bug, and only older 10 Mbps drivers don't report
> >their status, often because the chip itself doesn't know.
> 
> I'm sure you're right; I should have said most of the drivers that 
> I'm using (including e100 &e1000).

Can we find the cause for this obviously buggy behaviour inside the source? 
Where is the handling of physical up/down events different in tulip compared to
e100(0) ?

Regards,
Stephan


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html