From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arno Griffioen Message-Id: <199812221013.LAA23494@superluminal.usn.nl> Subject: Re: TCPv4 checksum errors To: Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Geert Uytterhoeven) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 11:13:26 +0100 (MET) Cc: davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com, Paul.Mackerras@cs.anu.edu.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org In-Reply-To: from "Geert Uytterhoeven" at Dec 22, 98 11:01:13 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: > > BTW, do all of the PPC's which exhibit the behavior use the same > > ethernet controller? > > Yes, we all have Tulip boards (I think >95% of the PPC users have Tulip > boards). And the message on linux-kernel about checksum errors on ARM related > to Tulip made me suspicious at well... Suggestion: Perhaps you should try some tests with an Amiga/PPC machine. That definitely doesn't use the Tulip board, but is PPC based. Can't help you there yet though as Linux/PPC dies with a machine-check when I try to access the brain-dead ISA NE2000 in my machine. Should give some clue about either the PPC checksum-computation or the ethernet card doing 'nasty things'. Bye Arno. -- Internet Exchange Europe B.V.Fax: +31-70-3630470 | One disk to rule them all, Lange Voorhout 9 Tel: +31-70-3600379 | One disk to bind them, 2514EA Den Haag +--------------------------------+ One disk to hold the files The Netherlands | * END OF TRANSMISSION * | And in the darkness grind 'em ----------------+--------------------------------+------------------------------ [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]] [[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]