On Tue, 2007-09-10 at 09:02 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>
> if we're going to remove LLTX from e1000 I prefer to do that at a much later
> time.
> Let's focus on e1000e instead - while it is still moving ;)
I think you may be in luck ;-> I just saw a patch posted by jgarzik
which touched both e1000/
jamal wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-10 at 15:40 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>
>> My biggest problem with the patch as you sent it that it's a tonload of
>> changes
>> and no implicit benefit immediately as I can see.
>
> The patch looks scary but is pretty tame when you apply it and stare at
> it.
>
>>
On Mon, 2007-08-10 at 15:40 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>
> My biggest problem with the patch as you sent it that it's a tonload of
> changes
> and no implicit benefit immediately as I can see.
The patch looks scary but is pretty tame when you apply it and stare at
it.
> I would really have to se
jamal wrote:
> Ok, here you go; the explanation is below. This is from net-2.6.24 of
> early this AM. I saw a patch you posted that is derived from Krishna;
> although it hasnt showed up in the tree - i have considered those
> changes and this patch adds a little more optimization in case of
> erro
Ok, here you go; the explanation is below. This is from net-2.6.24 of
early this AM. I saw a patch you posted that is derived from Krishna;
although it hasnt showed up in the tree - i have considered those
changes and this patch adds a little more optimization in case of
errors.
I will send you a
On Tue, 2007-02-10 at 10:43 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> the description of this patch is rather misleading, and the title certainly
> too.
That was fast - you said weeks, not days;->
> Can you resend this with a bit more elaborate explanation as to why the cb
> code is
> relevant to use here? No
jamal wrote:
> Auke,
>
> heres part of something i promised.
> I couldnt do any packet testing on because 82571EB is disabled in the
> driver. I uncommented the code out in the table, but the best i could
> get was the module loading, some probing and some sysfs renaming
> failures (probably a de
jamal wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-30-09 at 18:59 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>
>> the IDs are the only thing needed to enable all pci-e e1000 hardware.
>
> I'll give it a whirl in the next few days. It failed as a module (with
> e1000 compiled out), i will try to compile it in. I have access to the
> hardw
On Sun, 2007-30-09 at 18:59 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> the IDs are the only thing needed to enable all pci-e e1000 hardware.
I'll give it a whirl in the next few days. It failed as a module (with
e1000 compiled out), i will try to compile it in. I have access to the
hardware in quiet times - so it
jamal wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-30-09 at 15:23 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>> Gotta wait a bit, otherwise we have confusion and a bit of breakage from
>> two drivers with the same PCI IDs.
>
> ah, ok ;->
> When i was testing i compiled out e1000. I am willing to totaly migrate
> to e1000e, since ma
On Sun, 2007-30-09 at 15:23 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Gotta wait a bit, otherwise we have confusion and a bit of breakage from
> two drivers with the same PCI IDs.
ah, ok ;->
When i was testing i compiled out e1000. I am willing to totaly migrate
to e1000e, since major machine i have access t
jamal wrote:
On Sun, 2007-30-09 at 11:16 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
no, all the hardware that is commented should work just fine. I tested this
driver
on 82571, 82573 and ich8/ich9 - extensively.
Something else is wrong then. Can you just uncomment the 82571EB bits in
Dave's net-2.6.24 and just
On Sun, 2007-30-09 at 11:16 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> no, all the hardware that is commented should work just fine. I tested this
> driver
> on 82571, 82573 and ich8/ich9 - extensively.
Something else is wrong then. Can you just uncomment the 82571EB bits in
Dave's net-2.6.24 and just send a pin
jamal wrote:
> Auke,
>
> heres part of something i promised.
> I couldnt do any packet testing on because 82571EB is disabled in the
> driver. I uncommented the code out in the table, but the best i could
> get was the module loading, some probing and some sysfs renaming
> failures (probably a de
Auke,
heres part of something i promised.
I couldnt do any packet testing on because 82571EB is disabled in the
driver. I uncommented the code out in the table, but the best i could
get was the module loading, some probing and some sysfs renaming
failures (probably a debianism); the machine acces
15 matches
Mail list logo
