From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Revell Subject: Re: My vote against eepro* removal Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:56:53 -0500 Message-ID: <1137815814.3241.138.camel@mindpipe> References: <20060120095548.GA16000@2ka.mipt.ru> <1137804050.3241.32.camel@mindpipe> <56a8daef0601201719t448a6177lfebabe3ca38a00c7@mail.gmail.com> <1137807048.3241.58.camel@mindpipe> <56a8daef0601201801s6f8c3b79xcc06aaacc430309d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov , kus Kusche Klaus , Adrian Bunk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, john.ronciak@intel.com, ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt Return-path: To: John Ronciak In-Reply-To: <56a8daef0601201801s6f8c3b79xcc06aaacc430309d@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 18:01 -0800, John Ronciak wrote: > There is a timer routine in the eepro100 driver which does the check > for link as well as a check for on of the hang conditions (with > work-around). It does the check for link in a different way than > e100. e100 uses mii call where eepro100 does it manually. Another > difference is that eepro100 doesn't get stats unless called by the > system. It's not in the timer routine at all. > > Can we try a couple of things? 1) just comment out all the check for > link code in the e100 driver and give that a try and 2) just comment > out the update stats call and see if that works. These seem to be the > differences and we need to know which one is causing the problem. Heh, FWIW, Microsoft found this exact same bug with 2 different chipsets in their latency testing (see section 4.4): http://research.microsoft.com/~mbj/papers/tr-98-29.html Lee