On 6/6/07, Jack Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a version of code ready to MFC, the big difference with CURRENT
is that TSO is #ifdef'd off until Andre is able to get that back.
I wanted a chance for any concerns to be aired before I did it, issues
that anyone has had with the driver in
On 6/6/07, David Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a version of code ready to MFC, the big difference with CURRENT
> is that TSO is #ifdef'd off until Andre is able to get that back.
Is something broken with TSO? I just added TSO support to bce on
CURRENT
and was planning on MFC'i
> I have a version of code ready to MFC, the big difference with CURRENT
> is that TSO is #ifdef'd off until Andre is able to get that back.
Is something broken with TSO? I just added TSO support to bce on
CURRENT
and was planning on MFC'ing to RELENG_6 within the next week.
Dave
__
I have a version of code ready to MFC, the big difference with CURRENT
is that TSO is #ifdef'd off until Andre is able to get that back.
I wanted a chance for any concerns to be aired before I did it, issues
that anyone has had with the driver in CURRENT?
Regards,
Jack
_
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:48:46 +0100, Ronald Klop
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 03:44:37 +0200, Jack Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After a conference call today, it was decided that a merge of
my Intel driver base and the STABLE code would take place.
This code undoes the
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 03:44:37 +0200, Jack Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After a conference call today, it was decided that a merge of
my Intel driver base and the STABLE code would take place.
This code undoes the INTR_FAST/taskqueue approach for right
now. Work will continue to get that to w
71src/sys/dev/em/if_em.h
> 1.16.2.4 +574 -531 src/sys/dev/em/if_em_hw.c
> 1.15.2.5 +96 -148 src/sys/dev/em/if_em_hw.h
> 1.14.2.3 +46 -52src/sys/dev/em/if_em_osdep.h
> ___________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> ht
On 10/28/06, Nikolay Pavlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday, 27 October 2006 at 18:44:37 -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> After a conference call today, it was decided that a merge of
> my Intel driver base and the STABLE code would take place.
>
> This code undoes the INTR_FAST/taskqueue approach
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Saturday 21 October 2006 13:33, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
= We aren't currently speaking about performance, we need to know whether
= kernel with DEVICE_POLLING option makes NIC work stable.
Having noticed today's em-driver update, I rebuilt world/kernel and tried the
dump-t
On Friday, 27 October 2006 at 18:44:37 -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> After a conference call today, it was decided that a merge of
> my Intel driver base and the STABLE code would take place.
>
> This code undoes the INTR_FAST/taskqueue approach for right
> now. Work will continue to get that to work
On Saturday 21 October 2006 13:33, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
= We aren't currently speaking about performance, we need to know whether
= kernel with DEVICE_POLLING option makes NIC work stable.
Having noticed today's em-driver update, I rebuilt world/kernel and tried the
dump-test again.
The kernel ha
After a conference call today, it was decided that a merge of
my Intel driver base and the STABLE code would take place.
This code undoes the INTR_FAST/taskqueue approach for right
now. Work will continue to get that to work, but the hope is that
this driver will be more stable for the 6.2 releas
12 matches
Mail list logo