On 1/10/06, Grant Coady <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:24:28 -0800, Jesse Brandeburg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 1/9/06, Grant Coady <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> While testing for a different issue on a box with two e100 NICs I noticed
> >> that interrupt and other accounting are accumulated to the first e100 NIC.
> >
> >are the two e100's on the same broadcast domain? if they are you
> >might actually be transferring all traffic on eth0
>
> You ignore the fact these two NICs work as expected on 2.6.15
> and on 2.4.32 when e100 driver is compiled in, for the same
> hardware and test.
> >
> >e100 doesn't track its own interrupt counts, the kernel does that for us.
>
> What further testing would you like? Also, you ignore the all
> zeroes ifconfig accounting for the second NIC, and that the
> accounting was also accumulated to the first e100 along with
> interrupts.
okay mea culpa, I guess I didn't see you say that.
It sounds like the netdev structs are somehow overlapped.
> Anyway the solution is simple: modular e100 is borked on 2.4,
> compiled in is okay.
modular e100 2.X is borked, right? if you have a moment could you try
the 3.X e100 driver from sourceforge?
(http://prdownloads.sf.net/e1000) it should work fine on 2.4 and I
haven't heard any reports of icky stats.
thanks for your testing and bug reports.
Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
