On Wed, 09 May 2007 14:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > where'd it go?
>
> Look at the two individual changes, Herbert implemented the
> delay calculations different in the second changeset. So
> the code is much different there now.
ah, OK, I just haven't learned t
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 14:11:03 -0700
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 00:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Thanks for working this out, applied and pushed to net-2.6.git
>
> I'm
On Wed, 09 May 2007 00:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Thanks for working this out, applied and pushed to net-2.6.git
I'm all confused. I just pulled your tree and I see in the log
commit 4cba637dbb9a13706
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 17:16:15 +1000
> The real problem here is a combination of factors. First of all e100
> does a netif_carrier_off in its open routine *before* the first call
> to dev_activate. This when combined with the wrap-around bug causes
> an infin
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 11:11:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > [NET] link_watch: Eliminate potential delay on wrap-around
>
> hm, that fixed it. Do we know why? ;)
Yep :)
> btw, looking at the code:
>
> clear_bit(LW_RUNNING, &linkwatch_flags);
>
> spin_lock_irq(&lweventlist_
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:11:43 -0700
> On Wed, 9 May 2007 15:45:58 +1000 Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 03:31:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm, I don't see it here (probably because we use different NICs).
On Wed, 9 May 2007 15:45:58 +1000 Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 03:31:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I don't see it here (probably because we use different NICs).
> > But does this help?
>
> Thinking about it again I don't think it will help you beca
On Wed, 9 May 2007 15:54:05 +1000 Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:51:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > It's not hanging. It's just going reeeall sslllooowwllyyy.
> >
> > This is first noticeable during udev startup and persists all the w
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:51:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> It's not hanging. It's just going reeeall sslllooowwllyyy.
>
> This is first noticeable during udev startup and persists all the way
> through initscripts.
OK, does reverting the link watch patches make this go a
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 03:31:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> Hmm, I don't see it here (probably because we use different NICs).
> But does this help?
Thinking about it again I don't think it will help you because if your
carrier started out as off then it would've been considered an urgent
eve
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:20:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> My Vaio is taking 5-10x longer to boot when git-net as of five minutes ago
> is applied.
>
> It's not very clear what's gone wrong. A few linkwatch things are showing
> up in profiles, but it's not burning excessive CPU afaict.
My Vaio is taking 5-10x longer to boot when git-net as of five minutes ago
is applied.
It's not very clear what's gone wrong. A few linkwatch things are showing
up in profiles, but it's not burning excessive CPU afaict.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the
12 matches
Mail list logo
