From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Ronciak Subject: Re: My vote against eepro* removal Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:19:33 -0800 Message-ID: <56a8daef0601201719t448a6177lfebabe3ca38a00c7@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060120095548.GA16000@2ka.mipt.ru> <1137804050.3241.32.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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: Lee Revell In-Reply-To: <1137804050.3241.32.camel@mindpipe> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 1/20/06, Lee Revell wrote: > Seems like the important question is, why does e100 need a watchdog if > eepro100 works fine without one? Isn't the point of a watchdog in this > context to work around other bugs in the driver (or the hardware)? There are a number of things that the watchdog in e100 does. It checks link (up, down), reads the hardware stats, adjusts the adaptive IFS and checks to 3 known hang conditions based on certain types of the hardware. You might be able to get around without doing the work-arounds (as long as you don't' see hangs happening with the hardware being used) but the checking of the link and the stats are probably needed. -- Cheers, John