Re: Problem with 2.4.24 e1000 and keepalived

[Stephan von Krawczynski]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:43:13 -0800
Jonathan Lundell <jlundell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> At 1:18pm +0100 1/9/04, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> >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) ?
> 
> In e1000 5.2.20 (as in earlier versions), the link-state reporters 
> rely on netif_carrier_ok() for the state, which is in turned 
> maintained by the driver's watchdog timer.
> 
> e1000_down() both cancels the watchdog timer and calls 
> netif_carrier_off(), guaranteeing that if the interface is logically 
> down, the link will be reported as down regardless of the actual link 
> state.

That cannot be the cause, as the logical interface state is UP in the problem
case.

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