On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
Hello again
good to hear. what does atmdiag say about that interface? does it have
a large percentage of tx drops?
After one month work without oops, we have experienced oops again. It
happen when one or more VC is down (for example on atm s
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Lukasz Trabinski writes:
OK, I think that dirver works much better with udelay() function.
good to hear. what does atmdiag say about that interface? does it have
a large percentage of tx drops?
After 12 hours:
[
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Lukasz Trabinski writes:
>OK, I think that dirver works much better with udelay() function.
good to hear. what does atmdiag say about that interface? does it have
a large percentage of tx drops?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ker
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Lukasz Trabinski wrote:
Ok, i have just put udelay() function to the driver. If router will not crash
after 5-6 days, it mean that driver works fine. I will inform about
it. Generally problems has stareted (frequently crashes) when we puted to
them more atm interfaces/VCs and
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
the author sent me the latest version of the driver and i
got it applied. the driver does has some useful changes
along with this broken change. i suggest udelay() since
it preserves the author's original intent.
Ok, i have just put udelay()
the author sent me the latest version of the driver and i
got it applied. the driver does has some useful changes
along with this broken change. i suggest udelay() since
it preserves the author's original intent.
i intend to submit a patch this week. i probably wont
fix the ambassador since i c
You could also just revert to kernel 2.4.25 or
earlier. Someone who was apparently oblivious
to the fact that device driver send routines
were "routinely" called in irq context and/or
that it was a to call schedule()
under such circumstances slipped that one in
sometime between 2.4.25 which is OK
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Lukasz Trabinsk
i writes:
>Sorry, but I don;t understand, what line, i am not kernel guru. :/
look for the following code:
/* retry once again? */
if(--retry > 0) {
schedule();
goto retry_here;
}
c
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
the system keeps running right? the error is a 'warning' that the
fore200e is driver is sleeping when it should not (probably while holding
interrupts). the schedule() around like 1782 is not a good idea since
the fore200e_send() might not be
9 matches
Mail list logo
