Re: tulip driver: errors instead TX packets?

Adam Kropelin
2004-01-11T03:12:46Z

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:28:45PM +0100, Piotr Kaczuba wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Piotr Kaczuba wrote:
> >
> >> I've got a ADMtek Centaur (3cSOHO100B-TX) running with the tulip
> >> driver on 2.6.1. I wonder if anyone has noticed that ifconfig shows
> >> the packets sent in the errors field instead of the TX packets field.
> >> At least, this is what I assume because it shows 0 TX packets and
> >> 11756 errors.
> >
> > This is an old error, but since packets show up, nobody bothers with the
> > incorrect statistics...
>
> It seems that the error lies in the following piece of code from
> drivers/net/tulip/interrupt.c, function tulip_interrupt. I've inserted
> an additional printk after the "if (status & 0x8000)" and it looks like
> normal operation of the nic is considered as an major error by the
> driver because my printk appeared in dmesg output right after bringing
> the interface up. I assume that the else branch is never executed
> although I didn't test what happens if an transmit error really happens.
> I wonder if a fix for this problem consists of just changing the value
> of the AND mask but I have no idea what the right value would be.
>
>
> if (status & 0x8000) {

According to my PNIC docs (don't have true Tulip docs handy), this bit
is the logical OR of all the Tx error bits, so it appears a true tx
error has ocurred.

> /* There was an major error, log it. */
> #ifndef final_version
> if (tulip_debug > 1)
> printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: Transmit error, Tx status %8.8x.\n",
> dev->name, status);
> #endif

Enabling this printk and setting tulip_debug appropriately would tell us
what tx error you're experiencing.

> tp->stats.tx_errors++;
> if (status & 0x4104) tp->stats.tx_aborted_errors++;
> if (status & 0x0C00) tp->stats.tx_carrier_errors++;
> if (status & 0x0200) tp->stats.tx_window_errors++;
> if (status & 0x0002) tp->stats.tx_fifo_errors++;
> if ((status & 0x0080) && tp->full_duplex == 0)
> tp->stats.tx_heartbeat_errors++;

And this code bumps error counters based on the specific error that
ocurred. It all seems perfectly sane to me. The actual problem lies
elsewhere, I think.

--Adam