On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Did we fix wake-on-lan?
A bit of a generic question :/ There are indeed WOL fixes in there...
Other than that, I'll wait for the Intel guys to pop up and answer.
AFAIK the answer is unfortunately no. I think the driver may need
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> git://198.78.49.142/linux-2.6.git e1000-upstream
Pulled into netdev#upstream, thanks!
Did we fix wake-on-lan?
A bit of a generic question :/ There are indeed WOL fixes in there...
Other than that, I'll wait for the Intel guys
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > git://198.78.49.142/linux-2.6.git e1000-upstream
>
> Pulled into netdev#upstream, thanks!
Did we fix wake-on-lan?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Jeff Kirsher wrote:
On 3/2/06, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, I'll ask you guys to fix up your tree to apply without conflicts to
the latest git, and then resubmit the push. You don't have to resend
all 19 patches, I've reviewed and approved those already.
Jeff
Patch 19/
> >otoh, it's likely that SLES10 and RH-whatever will end up shipping with
> >those patches as a backport, so we might as well merge it for them?
We're not awfully keen on seeing these in 2.6.16. We're deep into beta
and can only keep tracking mainline rcs right now as long as they're
bugfix only.
On 3/2/06, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I'll ask you guys to fix up your tree to apply without conflicts to
> the latest git, and then resubmit the push. You don't have to resend
> all 19 patches, I've reviewed and approved those already.
>
> Jeff
Patch 19/19 has to be mod
Jeff Kirsher wrote:
The following patches were diff'd against Garzik's latest 'master' branch and
can be pulled from the following location:
git://198.78.49.142/linux-2.6.git e1000-upstream
Since (per current thread) I'm pulling everything into #upstream, I
apologize for asking you to split i
Andrew Morton wrote:
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
The more I think about it, the less motivated I am to push these changes into
2.6.16 at the last minute. Comments?
Absolutely. Considering what happened last time, I wouldn't pull from you
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > The more I think about it, the less motivated I am to push these changes
> > into
> > 2.6.16 at the last minute. Comments?
>
> Absolutely. Considering what happened last time, I wouldn't pull from
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> The more I think about it, the less motivated I am to push these changes into
> 2.6.16 at the last minute. Comments?
Absolutely. Considering what happened last time, I wouldn't pull from you
even if you pushed.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe
Jeff Kirsher wrote:
Patches 1-11 are e1000 fixes for the 2.6.16 kernel.
The following series implements...
01. Remove multiqueue code until we have support for MSI-X in our hardware
02. Fixes dead counters
03. Fix lock up while setting ring parameters
04. Fix unecessary delay for 82573 controlle
On 3/2/06, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your message above indicates they were diff'd against the 'master'
> branch, which is not correct. They should be against your fixes branch,
> "e1000-patchset", as I described in my previous example.
>
> Or is this just an email-wording issue, an
Jeff Kirsher wrote:
The following patches were diff'd against Garzik's latest 'master' branch and
can be pulled from the following location:
git://198.78.49.142/linux-2.6.git e1000-upstream
Patches 12-19 are new additions to e1000 for the 2.6.17 kernel.
Your message above indicates they were
The following patches were diff'd against Garzik's latest 'master' branch and
can be pulled from the following location:
git://198.78.49.142/linux-2.6.git e1000-patchset
Patches 1-11 are e1000 fixes for the 2.6.16 kernel.
The following series implements...
01. Remove multiqueue code until we hav
The following patches were diff'd against Garzik's latest 'master' branch and
can be pulled from the following location:
git://198.78.49.142/linux-2.6.git e1000-upstream
Patches 12-19 are new additions to e1000 for the 2.6.17 kernel.
12. Added 82573 controller support to TSO fix
13. Add enabled
On 3/2/06, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want such a separation, you need to separate it yourself.
> Otherwise, I have only a single pull target, and thus it can only go
> into 2.6.17.
>
> Example:
>
> 1) Create branch e1000-fixes with
> git checkout -f -b e1000-fixes mast
Jeff Kirsher wrote:
The following patches were diff'd against Garzik's latest 'master' branch and
can be pulled from the following location:
git://198.78.49.142/srv/git/intel/linux-2.6.git e1000-patchset
Patches 1-11 are e1000 fixes for the 2.6.16 kernel and
patches 12-19 are new additions to
The following patches were diff'd against Garzik's latest 'master' branch and
can be pulled from the following location:
git://198.78.49.142/srv/git/intel/linux-2.6.git e1000-patchset
Patches 1-11 are e1000 fixes for the 2.6.16 kernel and
patches 12-19 are new additions to e1000 for the 2.6.17
18 matches
Mail list logo
