From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Romieu Subject: Re: where is the proper place for r8169 bug reports? Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:31:09 +0100 Message-ID: <20050201223109.GA2957@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <20050131181508.GA15908@gerbil.toadis.porkis> <20050131214951.GA13217@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20050131215948.GA23289@gerbil.toadis.porkis> <20050131222342.GB13217@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20050201215607.GA8530@gerbil.toadis.porkis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com To: "Dale E. Martin" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050201215607.GA8530@gerbil.toadis.porkis> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Dale E. Martin : [...] > although it looks like the card is only found on cold boots. Can you send (or put on a webpage) the same dmesg and lspci -vx when it happens ? > The irony of this, btw, is that linux/Documentation/Changes still > recommends gcc 2.95.3 - even in version 2.6.8, possibly in 2.6.10. (I > think I saw it in there but I don't have it handy.) You saw it there. No comment. > Also, when I first started looking at this, I tried to #define > RTL8169_DEBUG but was getting compile errors. Should I file a bug about > this ? I lost this one. Re-added to the queue. Don't bother with a PR for it. [...] > It looks like the poor 1Ghz C3 in this machine is going to be the > bottleneck for getting good transfer rates over gigabit ethernet ;-) It depends on the kind of transfer. A bigger MTU really helps. So does TSO and checksumming but it is really dependant on the kind of load. This is the content of the patch against 2.4.28. [...] > What is the intention of this patch? Is it to handle the 2.95.x issue or > something else ? See above. Can you: - send me discretly the .o built from the r8169 sources with 2.95.3 ? - pest me until you have a 2.95.3 compiled r8169 module which does not lock up any more ? -- Ueimor