From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Srihari Vijayaraghavan Subject: Re: [PROBLEM] r8169 deadlocks Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:50:12 +1100 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <200401202150.12892.harisri@bigpond.com> References: <200401152039.00182.harisri@bigpond.com> <200401192251.41323.harisri@bigpond.com> <20040120002422.A19029@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Francois Romieu In-Reply-To: <20040120002422.A19029@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Content-Disposition: inline Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hello Francois, On Tuesday 20 January 2004 10:24, Francois Romieu wrote: > > The r8169-tc-index-overflow.patch does not (cleanly) apply on 2.6.1-bk2 + > > netdev4. > > Can you verify that your kernel tree is fine or give an (sh-)history of > the applied patches ? cd /usr/local/src tar xfj /media/cdrecorder/v2.6/linux-2.6.0.tar.bz2 cd linux-2.6.0 bunzip2 -c /media/cdrecorder/v2.6/patch-2.6.1.bz2 |patch -p1 bunzip2 -c ~/linux/patch-2.6.1-bk2.bz2 |patch -p1 bunzip2 -c ~/linux/2.6.1-bk1-netdev4.patch.bz2 |patch -p1 patch -p1 --dry-run < ~/linux/r8169/r8169-tx-index-overflow.patch patching file drivers/net/r8169.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 1341 (offset 364 lines). Hunk #2 FAILED at 1351. Hunk #3 succeeded at 1365 with fuzz 1 (offset 367 lines). 1 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/net/r8169.c.rej > I have just checked and the patch applies cleanly on kernel 2.6.1-bk2 + > Jeff's 2.6.1-bk1-netdev4 as well as on kernel 2.6.1-bk4 + Jeff's > 2.6.1-bk4-netdev1. Interesting. In this very thread you mentioned (in which you did not cc me BTW :-) that you welcomed AMD64-RTL8169 users, that gave me an idea. I tested this computer under 32 bit kernel (vanilla Fedora + 2.6.1-mm4) in which it survives my torture test (I have verified for no more than 5 minutes though, but then it does not survive for more than 5 secs under the 64 bit kernel). (And BTW I do not like binary only kernel modules, and I do these bug reporting "for fun", and there is no fun in binary only modules. I have been reading lkml for long enough to understand that :-) Thanks for help and suggestions so far, I appreciate them. Hari