From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Manfred Spraul Subject: Re: [PATCH-2.4] forcedeth update to 0.50 Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 07:50:32 +0200 Message-ID: <447D2EA8.8020001@colorfullife.com> References: <20060530220319.GA6945@w.ods.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: marcelo@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ayaz Abdulla Return-path: Received: from dbl.q-ag.de ([213.172.117.3]:36252 "EHLO dbl.q-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932489AbWEaFuq (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 01:50:46 -0400 To: Willy Tarreau In-Reply-To: <20060530220319.GA6945@w.ods.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi Willy, Willy Tarreau wrote: >I started from the latest backport you sent in september (0.42) and >incrementally applied 2.6 updates. I stopped at 0.50 which provides >VLAN support, because after this one, there are some 2.4-incompatible >changes (64bit consistent memory allocation for rings, and MSI/MSIX >support). > > > I agree, 2.4 needs a backport. Either a full backport as you did, or a minimal one-liner fix. Right now, the driver is not usable due to an incorrect initialization. Or to be more accurate: # modprobe # ifup works. But # modprobe # ifup # ifdown # ifup causes a misconfiguration, and the nic hangs hard after a few MB. And recent distros do the equivalent of ifup/ifdown/ifup somewhere in the initialization. Marcelo: Do you need a one-liner, or could you apply a large backport patch? -- Manfred