On 2/1/2016 5:27 PM, Marius Strobl wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 05:11:29PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote: >> On 1/30/2016 12:26 PM, Marius Strobl wrote: >>> >>> Ah, okay, that at least makes sense. Can you please verify that with >>> the attached patch applied, you have a setup that works out of the >>> box? >>> >> Hi, >> The patch does not apply cleanly > > Hrm, it does here on stable/10. If your checkout is unaltered, the > only thing I can think of is that the patch got corrupted when sent > by e-mail. I've put it online: > https://people.freebsd.org/~marius/em_tso_gig_only_10.diff
Much better, thanks :) 0(vinyl3)# fetch https://people.freebsd.org/~marius/em_tso_gig_only_10.diff em_tso_gig_only_10.diff 100% of 780 B 8385 kBps 00m00s 0(vinyl3)# patch < em_tso_gig_only_10.diff Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c |=================================================================== |--- sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c (revision 294962) |+++ sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c (working copy) -------------------------- Patching file sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 1377. done 0(vinyl3)# -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, m...@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
