Hi,
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...snip...]
> What happens if you try the following patch instead? The original
> out-of-memory behaviour seems a bit bogus to me. This patch is untested,
> but should work.
I applied this patch and the box didn't reboot or hang during my simp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Shane Shrybman wrote:
> > I applied these changes to 2.4.0-test10-pre3 and I got these messages in
> > the system log:
> >
> > Oct 15 11:24:05 mars kernel: __alloc_pages: 5-order allocation failed.
> > Oct 15 11:24:05 mars kernel: eth0: Memory squ
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Shane Shrybman wrote:
> I applied these changes to 2.4.0-test10-pre3 and I got these messages in
> the system log:
>
> Oct 15 11:24:05 mars kernel: __alloc_pages: 5-order allocation failed.
> Oct 15 11:24:05 mars kernel: eth0: Memory squeeze, dropping packet.
> Oct 15 11:24:0
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Instead of checking all possible error bits, the RxStatusOK bit should be
> checked. I encounter rx_status==0 when I stress my P90, which gives a
> negative packet size (-4), and an oops in eth_copy_and_sum.
>
> Applies to 2.4.0-test10-pre
Hi!
Instead of checking all possible error bits, the RxStatusOK bit should be
checked. I encounter rx_status==0 when I stress my P90, which gives a
negative packet size (-4), and an oops in eth_copy_and_sum.
Applies to 2.4.0-test10-pre2...
/Tobias
--- 8139too.c.orig Sun Oct 15 01:49:47 2
5 matches
Mail list logo