Am Fri, 08 Jan 2016 20:08:39 +
Eric Joyner schrieb:
> Does your i210 now work with the reverted version of igb? I didn't get a
> chance to follow up on this earlier.
>
> Also, can you give us the device ID for the device? There are a couple
> versions of the i210 hardware.
>
> - Eric
Not y
Does your i210 now work with the reverted version of igb? I didn't get a
chance to follow up on this earlier.
Also, can you give us the device ID for the device? There are a couple
versions of the i210 hardware.
- Eric
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:23 PM O. Hartmann
wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:52:57 -0700
Sean Bruno wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
>
> On 10/02/15 00:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:39:11 + Eric Joyner
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Oliver,
> >>
> >> did you try Sean's suggestion?
> >>
> >> - Eric
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/02/15 00:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:39:11 + Eric Joyner
> wrote:
>
>> Oliver,
>>
>> did you try Sean's suggestion?
>>
>> - Eric
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:10 PM Sean Bruno
>> wrote:
>>
>
>
> On 09/21/15
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:39:11 +
Eric Joyner wrote:
> Oliver,
>
> did you try Sean's suggestion?
>
> - Eric
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:10 PM Sean Bruno wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/21/15 23:23, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > > On Mon, 21
Am Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:39:11 +
Eric Joyner schrieb:
> Oliver,
>
> did you try Sean's suggestion?
>
> - Eric
Hello Eric,
no, sorry, not yet. Today was the first day with the igb-equipted servers and
tomorrow
(Friday) I will start to check whether Sean's suggestion helps or not.
In the sh
Oliver,
did you try Sean's suggestion?
- Eric
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:10 PM Sean Bruno wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
>
> On 09/21/15 23:23, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:13:18 + Eric Joyner
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If you do a diff between r28
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/21/15 23:23, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:13:18 + Eric Joyner
> wrote:
>
>> If you do a diff between r288057 and r287761, there are no
>> differences between the sys/dev/e1000, sys/modules/em, and
>> sys/modules/igb direc
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:13:18 +
Eric Joyner wrote:
> If you do a diff between r288057 and r287761, there are no differences
> between the sys/dev/e1000, sys/modules/em, and sys/modules/igb directories.
> Are you sure r287761 actually works?
I'm quite sure r287761 works (and r287762 doesn't),
If you do a diff between r288057 and r287761, there are no differences
between the sys/dev/e1000, sys/modules/em, and sys/modules/igb directories.
Are you sure r287761 actually works?
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM O. Hartmann
wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:23:44 -0700
> Sean Bruno wrote:
>
>
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:23:44 -0700
Sean Bruno wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
>
> On 09/18/15 10:20, Eric Joyner wrote:
> > He has an i210 -- he would want to revert e1000_i210.[ch], too.
> >
> > Sorry for the thrash Sean -- it sounds like it would be a good ide
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/18/15 10:20, Eric Joyner wrote:
> He has an i210 -- he would want to revert e1000_i210.[ch], too.
>
> Sorry for the thrash Sean -- it sounds like it would be a good idea
> for you should revert this patch, and Jeff and I can go look at
> try
Am Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:50:19 -0700
Sean Bruno schrieb:
>
> >
> > r287762 broke the system
>
>
> Before I revert this changeset *again* can you test revert r287762 from
> if_igb.c, e1000_82575.c and e1000_82575.h *only*
>
> That narrows down the change quite a bit.
>
> sean
I have no acces
He has an i210 -- he would want to revert e1000_i210.[ch], too.
Sorry for the thrash Sean -- it sounds like it would be a good idea for you
should revert this patch, and Jeff and I can go look at trying these shared
code updates and igb changes internally again. We at Intel really could've
done a
>
> r287762 broke the system
Before I revert this changeset *again* can you test revert r287762 from
if_igb.c, e1000_82575.c and e1000_82575.h *only*
That narrows down the change quite a bit.
sean
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https:/
.org] On Behalf Of Hans Petter Selasky
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:11 AM To: O. Hartmann
> > ; freebsd-current
> > Subject: Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken
> >
> > On 09/15/15 12:56, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > > Running CURRENT as of today (r287817), it see
nn
> ; freebsd-current
> Subject: Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken
>
> On 09/15/15 12:56, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > Running CURRENT as of today (r287817), it seems that the network system of
> > CURRENT is corrupted. The machine in question is a Fujitsu server Primergy
> >
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Hans Petter Selasky
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:11 AM
To: O. Hartmann ; freebsd-current
Subject: Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken
On 09/15/15 12:56, O. Hartmann wrote
On 09/15/15 12:56, O. Hartmann wrote:
Running CURRENT as of today (r287817), it seems that the network system of
CURRENT is corrupted. The machine in question is a Fujitsu server Primergy RX
1330 with two Intel "igb" devices (igb0 and igb1).
the network is now on both devices unreachable. With o
19 matches
Mail list logo
