On 3/9/19 3:40 PM, Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
>
>>
>> On 3/9/19 3:07 PM, Appana Durga Kedareswara rao wrote:
>>> While stress testing the CAN interface on xilinx axi can in loopback
>>> mode getting message "write: no buffer space available"
>>> Increasing device tx queue
On 3/9/19 3:07 PM, Appana Durga Kedareswara rao wrote:
> While stress testing the CAN interface on xilinx axi can
> in loopback mode getting message "write: no buffer space available"
> Increasing device tx queue length resolved the above mentioned issue.
No need to patch the kernel:
$ ip link se
r Hartkopp
> Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp
> Cc: linux-stable # >= 2.6.26
Acked-by: Andre Naujoks
Sorry for the late reply, but I seem to have missed the initial send of
v2 of this. I wanted to at least ack it, since I made such a fuss about
the timeouts. :-)
Regards
Andre
> --
On 1/13/19 9:18 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> On 1/12/19 11:45 PM, Andre Naujoks wrote:
>> I really don't know. That's why I'd be hesitant to restrict this. Maybe
>> limit it to something really out of the ordinary, like a year?
>
> :-)
I would assume someone applied some (unintended?) stuff into the
> timeval.
>
> Don't you think?
>
> Best,
> Oliver
>
> On 1/12/19 11:16 PM, Andre Naujoks wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> The 15 minute limit seems arbitrary to me. I'd be surprised if an
>&
Hi.
The 15 minute limit seems arbitrary to me. I'd be surprised if an
(R|T)X_SETUP failed because of a timeout greater than this. Are there
any problems with allowing larger timeouts? If not, I do not see a
reason to restrict this.
Regards
Andre
On 1/12/19 10:57 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Ky
On 5/8/18 1:48 PM, 吉藤英明 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2018-05-08 15:41 GMT+09:00 Andre Naujoks :
>> On 08.05.2018 08:31, 吉藤英明 wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 2018-05-08 15:03 GMT+09:00 Andre Naujoks :
>>>> On 11.04.2018 13:02, Andre Naujoks wrote:
>>>>
On 08.05.2018 08:31, 吉藤英明 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2018-05-08 15:03 GMT+09:00 Andre Naujoks :
>> On 11.04.2018 13:02, Andre Naujoks wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>
>> Hi again.
>>
>> Since it has been a month now, I'd like to send a little "ping" on this
On 11.04.2018 13:02, Andre Naujoks wrote:
> Hi.
Hi again.
Since it has been a month now, I'd like to send a little "ping" on this subject.
Is anything wrong with this? Or was it just bad timing?
Regards
Andre
>
> I was running into a problem, when trying to join m
Hi all.
It seems the documentation (i.e. 'man ipv6') and the actual
behavior of the kernel diverge somehow in regard to what
IPV6_MULTICAST_LOOP does.
The manpage says:
---
IPV6_MULTICAST_LOOP
Control whether the socket sees multicast packets that it has send
itself. Argument is a pointe
5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andre Naujoks
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:38:28 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Add a socketoption IPV6_MULTICAST_ALL analogue to the IPV4
version
The socket option will be enabled by default to ensure current behaviour
is not changed. This is the same for the IPv4 versio
11 matches
Mail list logo
