> > bce(4) is broken in stable, your best option is to revert to the
> > driver in releng 7.1.
>
> Is anybody working on fixing bce(4) in stable? As far as
> I can see in the repository, nothing happened recently.
> The last commit in releng 7 was in December last year.
I am slightly surprised
Kostik Belousov wrote (on 2009-02-08):
> Danny Braniss wrote:
> > going through the logs, after it happened again, I got a glimps of this:
> >
> > Feb 6 18:00:13 warhol-00.cs.huji.ac.il kernel: bce0: discard frame w/o
> > leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0)
> > Feb 6 18:00:19 klee-0
>
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Danny Braniss wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Danny Braniss wrote:
> >>
> >>> looking at the bce source, it's not clear (to me :-). If errors are
> >>> detected in bce_rx_intr(), the packet gets dropped, which I would expect
> >>> to be the treatment of an offloded che
On Feb 8, 2009, at 3:31 AM, Danny Braniss wrote:
--jI8keyz6grp/JLjh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2009-Feb-08 10:45:13 +0200, Danny Braniss
wrote:
Feb 6 18:00:13 warhol-00.cs.huji.ac.il kernel: bce0: di
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Danny Braniss wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Danny Braniss wrote:
looking at the bce source, it's not clear (to me :-). If errors are
detected in bce_rx_intr(), the packet gets dropped, which I would expect
to be the treatment of an offloded chekcum error, but it seems that i
>
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Danny Braniss wrote:
>
> > looking at the bce source, it's not clear (to me :-). If errors are
> > detected
> > in bce_rx_intr(), the packet gets dropped, which I would expect to be the
> > treatment of an offloded chekcum error, but it seems that is not the case.
>
>
On 2009-Feb-08 10:45:13 +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
>Feb 6 18:00:13 warhol-00.cs.huji.ac.il kernel: bce0: discard frame w/o
>leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0)
...
>Feb 6 19:00:00 warhol-00.cs.huji.ac.il amd[715]: Unknown $ sequence in
>"rhost:=${RHOST};type:=nfsl;fs:=${FS};rfs:=$huldig
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Danny Braniss wrote:
looking at the bce source, it's not clear (to me :-). If errors are detected
in bce_rx_intr(), the packet gets dropped, which I would expect to be the
treatment of an offloded chekcum error, but it seems that is not the case.
I think we're thinking of
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> > On 2009-Feb-08 11:31:45 +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
> >> Q: with rxcsum on, and a bad checksum packet is received, is it
> >> dropped by the NIC? if not, then it somewhat explains the behaviour
> >
> > If checksum offloading is working correctly t
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2009-Feb-08 11:31:45 +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
Q: with rxcsum on, and a bad checksum packet is received, is it
dropped by the NIC? if not, then it somewhat explains the behaviour
If checksum offloading is working correctly then a bad packet shou
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 10:45:13AM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
> I'm reposting this to hackers, and there is some more info.
>
> > Hi,
> > on 2 different servers, running 7.1-stable + zfs, I get this
> > error rather frequently:
> >
> > Feb 5 17:01:03 warhol-00 kernel: impossible packet length (
On 2009-Feb-08 11:31:45 +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
>Q: with rxcsum on, and a bad checksum packet is received, is it
> dropped by the NIC? if not, then it somewhat explains the behaviour
If checksum offloading is working correctly then a bad packet should
be dropped by the NIC. If checksum off
>
> --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On 2009-Feb-08 10:45:13 +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
> >Feb 6 18:00:13 warhol-00.cs.huji.ac.il kernel: bce0: discard frame w/o=20
> >leading etherne
I'm reposting this to hackers, and there is some more info.
> Hi,
> on 2 different servers, running 7.1-stable + zfs, I get this
> error rather frequently:
>
> Feb 5 17:01:03 warhol-00 kernel: impossible packet length (543383918) from
> nfs server sunfire:/dist
> Feb 5 17:01:03 warhol-00 kerne
> On 2009-Feb-06 08:32:27 +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
> >on 2 different servers, running 7.1-stable + zfs, I get this
> >error rather frequently:
> >
> >Feb 5 17:01:03 warhol-00 kernel: impossible packet length (543383918) fro=
> m=20
> >nfs server sunfire:/dist
>
So many quetsions :-)
> I gat
On 2009-Feb-06 08:32:27 +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
>on 2 different servers, running 7.1-stable + zfs, I get this
>error rather frequently:
>
>Feb 5 17:01:03 warhol-00 kernel: impossible packet length (543383918) from
>nfs server sunfire:/dist
I gather warhol-00 is running 7.1-S+ZFS.
How recent
16 matches
Mail list logo
