Re: [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits

2007-05-04 Thread David Acker
David Acker wrote: So far my testing has shown both the original and the new version of the S-bit patch work in that no corruption seemed to occur over long term runs. I spoke too soon. Further testing has not gone well. If I use the default settings for CPU saver and drop the receive pool

Re: [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits

2007-05-02 Thread David Acker
David Acker wrote: Milton Miller wrote: In commit d52df4a35af569071fda3f4eb08e47cc7023f094, the description talks about emulating another driver by setting addtional bits and the being unable to test when submitted. Seeing the & operator to set more bits made me suspicious, and indeed the bits

Re: [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits

2007-05-01 Thread Kok, Auke
Milton Miller wrote: In commit d52df4a35af569071fda3f4eb08e47cc7023f094, the description talks about emulating another driver by setting addtional bits and the being unable to test when submitted. Seeing the & operator to set more bits made me suspicious, and indeed the bits are defined in posit

Re: [PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits

2007-05-01 Thread David Acker
Milton Miller wrote: In commit d52df4a35af569071fda3f4eb08e47cc7023f094, the description talks about emulating another driver by setting addtional bits and the being unable to test when submitted. Seeing the & operator to set more bits made me suspicious, and indeed the bits are defined in posit

[PATCH] e100 rx: or s and el bits

2007-05-01 Thread Milton Miller
In commit d52df4a35af569071fda3f4eb08e47cc7023f094, the description talks about emulating another driver by setting addtional bits and the being unable to test when submitted. Seeing the & operator to set more bits made me suspicious, and indeed the bits are defined in positive logic: cb_