Linus,
Could you apply the following patch, please?
Andrey
- Forwarded message from Kai Germaschewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:51:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Kai Germaschewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:
Linus,
Could you apply the following patch, please?
Andrey
- Forwarded message from Kai Germaschewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:51:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Kai Germaschewski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 06:36:03PM -0700, Dionysius Wilson Almeida wrote:
> I tried inserting a udelay(1) and increasing the count ..but
> the same behaviour.
>
> any clues ? btw, i've been able to compile the redhat 7.1 intel e100
> driver and it works fine for my card.
Your problem is
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 06:36:03PM -0700, Dionysius Wilson Almeida wrote:
I tried inserting a udelay(1) and increasing the count ..but
the same behaviour.
any clues ? btw, i've been able to compile the redhat 7.1 intel e100
driver and it works fine for my card.
Your problem is different
What was the first error message from the driver?
NETDEV WATCHDOG report went before wait_for_cmd_done timeout and is more
important. I wonder if you had some other messages before the watchdog one.
Andrey
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:31:34PM -0700, Dionysius Wilson Almeida wrote:
> And
What was the first error message from the driver?
NETDEV WATCHDOG report went before wait_for_cmd_done timeout and is more
important. I wonder if you had some other messages before the watchdog one.
Andrey
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:31:34PM -0700, Dionysius Wilson Almeida wrote:
And
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:40:34AM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
>
> I am _very_ willing to devote some time to getting this fixed in both the
> kernel and Donald's drivers if anyone is interested in tracking down the
> problem. I'm not very familiar with the hardware, but I have a test
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:40:34AM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
I am _very_ willing to devote some time to getting this fixed in both the
kernel and Donald's drivers if anyone is interested in tracking down the
problem. I'm not very familiar with the hardware, but I have a test box
Please apply the fix for unpaired lock/unlock_kernel in fs/locks.c
Andrey
--- fs/locks.c~ Fri Jun 15 17:14:05 2001
+++ fs/locks.c Fri Jun 15 19:16:31 2001
@@ -856,7 +856,7 @@
new_fl2 = locks_alloc_lock(0);
error = -ENOLCK; /* "no luck" */
if (!(new_fl &&
Please apply the fix for unpaired lock/unlock_kernel in fs/locks.c
Andrey
--- fs/locks.c~ Fri Jun 15 17:14:05 2001
+++ fs/locks.c Fri Jun 15 19:16:31 2001
@@ -856,7 +856,7 @@
new_fl2 = locks_alloc_lock(0);
error = -ENOLCK; /* no luck */
if (!(new_fl new_fl2))
-
Hi,
It's not a bug, it's willful.
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 05:08:25PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> I am writing a transparent-proxy-like application, that needs to be able to
> bind a TCP socket with a non-local address (i.e., the proxy contacts the
> origin-server, in the local network,
Hi,
It's not a bug, it's willful.
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 05:08:25PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote:
I am writing a transparent-proxy-like application, that needs to be able to
bind a TCP socket with a non-local address (i.e., the proxy contacts the
origin-server, in the local network, pretending
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 09:25:46PM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:18:37 + (GMT), Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2.2.19pre15
> [...]
> > o EEpro100 posted writes fix (Ion Badulescu)
>
> All th
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 07:14:09AM +, angelcode wrote:
> I've been seeing the same kind of messages with an eepro100
> but they don't happen when the module is loaded. They
> happen after it has been running for a few days. I am
> running 2.4.1. I haven't seen any real problems but
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 07:14:09AM +, angelcode wrote:
I've been seeing the same kind of messages with an eepro100
but they don't happen when the module is loaded. They
happen after it has been running for a few days. I am
running 2.4.1. I haven't seen any real problems but these
If it's a VALinux computer, contact them.
They've made some progress in tracking different eepro100 problems.
Andrey
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 08:32:07PM +0200, Ionut Dumitrache wrote:
> The integrated LAN on Intel boards with i815 chipset
> apparently is not fully supported. In
If it's a VALinux computer, contact them.
They've made some progress in tracking different eepro100 problems.
Andrey
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 08:32:07PM +0200, Ionut Dumitrache wrote:
The integrated LAN on Intel boards with i815 chipset
apparently is not fully supported. In
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:18:37PM +0900, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> 00:0c.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557 (rev 08)
> 00:0d.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557 (rev 08)
It's i82559.
It can't have that original bug which is checked by those EEPROM bits and
workaround for
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:18:37PM +0900, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
00:0c.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557 (rev 08)
00:0d.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557 (rev 08)
It's i82559.
It can't have that original bug which is checked by those EEPROM bits and
workaround for
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:30:48PM +0900, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:00:34AM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> > > Augustin, could you send the output of `lspci' and `eepro100-diag -ee', please?
> > > (The latter may be taken from ftp://scyld.com/pub/diag/)
> >
> > I'd be
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:21:06AM +1100, CaT wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 03:14:09PM +1100, CaT wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 09:26:38AM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:40:33PM +1100, CaT wrote:
> > > [snip]
> >
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:21:06AM +1100, CaT wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 03:14:09PM +1100, CaT wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 09:26:38AM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:40:33PM +1100, CaT wrote:
[snip]
Feb 11 22:30:18 theirongiant kernel: eepro100
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:30:48PM +0900, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:00:34AM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
Augustin, could you send the output of `lspci' and `eepro100-diag -ee', please?
(The latter may be taken from ftp://scyld.com/pub/diag/)
I'd be curious to
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:40:33PM +1100, CaT wrote:
[snip]
> Feb 11 22:30:18 theirongiant kernel: eepro100: cmd_wait for(0x70) timedout
>with(0x70)!
Please try the attached patch.
Actually, it's designed to solve another problem, but may be your one has the
same origin as that other.
Best
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:40:33PM +1100, CaT wrote:
[snip]
Feb 11 22:30:18 theirongiant kernel: eepro100: cmd_wait for(0x70) timedout
with(0x70)!
Please try the attached patch.
Actually, it's designed to solve another problem, but may be your one has the
same origin as that other.
Best
Ion,
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:26:51AM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 20:15:39 +0900, Augustin Vidovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> eth0: Sending a multicast list set command from a timer routine."
> >>
> >> If you find such messages, the work-around really did
Ion,
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:26:51AM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 20:15:39 +0900, Augustin Vidovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
eth0: Sending a multicast list set command from a timer routine."
If you find such messages, the work-around really did something.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0700, Micah Gorrell wrote:
> As stated in a number of previous messages to this list many people have had
> serious problems with the eepro100 driver in 2.4. These problems where not
> there in 2.2 and it is not a select few machines showing this so I very
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:20:03PM -0700, Micah Gorrell wrote:
> I have doing some testing with kernel 2.4 and I have had constant problems
> with the eepro100 driver. Under 2.2 it works perfectly but under 2.4 I am
> unable to use more than one card in a server and when I do use one
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:20:03PM -0700, Micah Gorrell wrote:
I have doing some testing with kernel 2.4 and I have had constant problems
with the eepro100 driver. Under 2.2 it works perfectly but under 2.4 I am
unable to use more than one card in a server and when I do use one card I
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0700, Micah Gorrell wrote:
As stated in a number of previous messages to this list many people have had
serious problems with the eepro100 driver in 2.4. These problems where not
there in 2.2 and it is not a select few machines showing this so I very much
Hello,
Here is a patch with important eepro100 fixes for 2.4 kernel:
- Big-endian fixes (double cpu->bus conversion).
- "card reports no resources" hardware timing bug workaround.
Thanks to Donald Becker.
It may also fix a problem with "wait_for_cmd_done timeout" symptom.
Best regards
Hello,
Here is a patch with important eepro100 fixes for 2.4 kernel:
- Big-endian fixes (double cpu-bus conversion).
- "card reports no resources" hardware timing bug workaround.
Thanks to Donald Becker.
It may also fix a problem with "wait_for_cmd_done timeout" symptom.
Best regards
cott Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Andrey Savochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EEPRO100 Power Management problem?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp
like that is happening. However, I can't think
of how to fix it. Everything goes "disabled".
Attached are the two 'lspci -v' executed pre and post-suspend. Also attached
is a diff file between them. If you have any further ideas, please e-mail me
back?
Scott.
* Andrey Savochkin tran
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 07:02:52PM -0800, Kostas Nikoloudakis wrote:
> Jan 16 00:49:04 cd20 kernel: eth0: card reports no resources.
> Jan 16 00:49:06 cd20 kernel: eth0: can't fill rx buffer (force 0)!
The driver can't allocate buffers for incoming packets.
Increase /proc/sys/vm/freepages
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 07:02:52PM -0800, Kostas Nikoloudakis wrote:
Jan 16 00:49:04 cd20 kernel: eth0: card reports no resources.
Jan 16 00:49:06 cd20 kernel: eth0: can't fill rx buffer (force 0)!
The driver can't allocate buffers for incoming packets.
Increase /proc/sys/vm/freepages
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:42:50PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:17:31PM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
[snip]
> > These two line are a workaround for the RxAddrLoad timing bug,
> > developed by Donald Becker. wait_for_cmd_done timeo
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:10:11PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> We have a server running 2.2.18 + RAID which has an eepro100 in it.
> It's connected to a Dlink DFE 816 100 16port 100baseTX hub.
>
> When the machine boots we get a whole series of timeout errors.
>
> Jan 18 11:58:09 miguet
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:10:11PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
We have a server running 2.2.18 + RAID which has an eepro100 in it.
It's connected to a Dlink DFE 816 100 16port 100baseTX hub.
When the machine boots we get a whole series of timeout errors.
Jan 18 11:58:09 miguet
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:42:50PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:17:31PM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
[snip]
These two line are a workaround for the RxAddrLoad timing bug,
developed by Donald Becker. wait_for_cmd_done timeouts may be related
to this bug, too
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:52:19AM -0800, Tom Murphy wrote:
>Also, regarding the eepro100 driver, are there any plans to fix
> support for the following chipset (given by lspci):
>
[snip]
> I have one of these at work and I will get the following messages:
>
> Dec 11 10:46:13
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:52:19AM -0800, Tom Murphy wrote:
Also, regarding the eepro100 driver, are there any plans to fix
support for the following chipset (given by lspci):
[snip]
I have one of these at work and I will get the following messages:
Dec 11 10:46:13 morpheus
Hello,
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:13:27AM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>
> > > There is nothing relevant in the errata, unfortunately...
> >
> > Do you have it?
>
> I have the manual in the office, so I can look
Hello,
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:13:27AM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
There is nothing relevant in the errata, unfortunately...
Do you have it?
I have the manual in the office, so I can look at it again in a couple of
days. I've used
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:45:24PM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:51:09 +0800, Andrey Savochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've been promised that this issue would be looked up in Intel's errata by
> > people who had the access
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:45:24PM -0800, Ion Badulescu wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:51:09 +0800, Andrey Savochkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been promised that this issue would be looked up in Intel's errata by
people who had the access to it, but I haven't got the results yet
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:41:11PM +0100, Udo A. Steinberg wrote:
> I've been using an older EEPro100/B card until now and it's been working without any
> problems ever since the transmitter bugs were fixed. The boot output looked like
>this:
[snip]
> Today I've installed a new model
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:41:11PM +0100, Udo A. Steinberg wrote:
I've been using an older EEPro100/B card until now and it's been working without any
problems ever since the transmitter bugs were fixed. The boot output looked like
this:
[snip]
Today I've installed a new model with
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 09:28:44AM -0500, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
> Was running 2.2.15pre18 with no eepro problems.
> Upgraded to 2.2.18pre20 and started experiencing transmit timed out errors
> a day into the boot. eth0 was unresponsive in/out. down/uping the
> interface had no
Hello,
I've updated eepro100 driver for 2.4 kernel branch.
So far, the most annoying initialization problem (expressing itself in "card
reports no resources" messages) hasn't been fixed.
The driver is available at
ftp://ftp.sw.com.sg/pub/Linux/people/saw/kernel/v2.4/eepro100.c
The main changes
Hello,
I've updated eepro100 driver for 2.4 kernel branch.
So far, the most annoying initialization problem (expressing itself in "card
reports no resources" messages) hasn't been fixed.
The driver is available at
ftp://ftp.sw.com.sg/pub/Linux/people/saw/kernel/v2.4/eepro100.c
The main changes
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 09:28:44AM -0500, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
Was running 2.2.15pre18 with no eepro problems.
Upgraded to 2.2.18pre20 and started experiencing transmit timed out errors
a day into the boot. eth0 was unresponsive in/out. down/uping the
interface had no effect.
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 04:24:12PM -0800, Allen, David B wrote:
> FWIW, I have a dual-proc SuperMicro motherboard P3DM3 with integrated
> Adaptec SCSI and Intel 8255x built-in NIC.
>
> Sometimes on a cold boot I get the "kernel: eth0: card reports no RX
> buffers" that repeats, but if I
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 04:24:12PM -0800, Allen, David B wrote:
FWIW, I have a dual-proc SuperMicro motherboard P3DM3 with integrated
Adaptec SCSI and Intel 8255x built-in NIC.
Sometimes on a cold boot I get the "kernel: eth0: card reports no RX
buffers" that repeats, but if I
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 06:30:32PM +0100, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
> BTW, I wanted to take a look at the frequently mentioned beancounter patch,
> here is the current state,
> http://www.asp-linux.com/en/products/ubpatch.shtml
> "Sorry, due to growing expenses for support of
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 06:30:32PM +0100, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
BTW, I wanted to take a look at the frequently mentioned beancounter patch,
here is the current state,
http://www.asp-linux.com/en/products/ubpatch.shtml
"Sorry, due to growing expenses for support of public
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 04:14:39PM -0800, Robert Lynch wrote:
> No oops, but right after I installed test11-pre1, then tried to
> access a Windows box as a VNC client, this message started
> getting continuously dumped by syslog:
> ===
> ...
> Nov 8 15:32:01 ives kernel: eth0: card
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 04:14:39PM -0800, Robert Lynch wrote:
No oops, but right after I installed test11-pre1, then tried to
access a Windows box as a VNC client, this message started
getting continuously dumped by syslog:
===
...
Nov 8 15:32:01 ives kernel: eth0: card reports no
Hello,
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 02:32:44PM -0500, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
[snip]
> Also, here's a possibly useless personal note WRT the
> eepro100 resource msgs, FWIW: I was recently using remote
> KGDB to work on an unrelated problem on an MP Pentium
> box with integrated eepro100. Whenever
Hello,
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 02:32:44PM -0500, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
[snip]
Also, here's a possibly useless personal note WRT the
eepro100 resource msgs, FWIW: I was recently using remote
KGDB to work on an unrelated problem on an MP Pentium
box with integrated eepro100. Whenever I'd
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:50:29AM -0700, David Lang wrote:
> I was thinking about this problem late last week and would like to throw
> out a off-the-wall proposal.
>
> for a dedicated server (no end-user logins) how about making a kernel
> compile option that removes the 'only root can bind to
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:50:29AM -0700, David Lang wrote:
I was thinking about this problem late last week and would like to throw
out a off-the-wall proposal.
for a dedicated server (no end-user logins) how about making a kernel
compile option that removes the 'only root can bind to
Hello,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 05:23:10PM +1000, Cefiar wrote:
>
> I'm happy with that - still produces the required effect and removes bloat
> from kernel space. Also means it should be easy to revert to default behavior.
>
> My original idea was basically a wrapper much like the way chroot
Hello,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 05:23:10PM +1000, Cefiar wrote:
I'm happy with that - still produces the required effect and removes bloat
from kernel space. Also means it should be easy to revert to default behavior.
My original idea was basically a wrapper much like the way chroot
[cc list trimmed]
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 09:52:30PM +1000, Cefiar wrote:
[snip]
> ... what is really necessary,
> which is to simply not allow the programs to bind to the addresses in the
> first place. Unfortunately to implement this sort of thing in god knows how
> many user space programs
[cc list trimmed]
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 09:52:30PM +1000, Cefiar wrote:
[snip]
... what is really necessary,
which is to simply not allow the programs to bind to the addresses in the
first place. Unfortunately to implement this sort of thing in god knows how
many user space programs
he onboard eepro100
> interface, often, doesn't work. This starts to look like eepro100-driver
> related so I copied Andrey Savochkin. Btw, one of my colleagues also
> reported a similar situation on his quad Xeon with 6G RAM whereby one of
> the eepro100 interfaces was dead unt
ace, often, doesn't work. This starts to look like eepro100-driver
related so I copied Andrey Savochkin. Btw, one of my colleagues also
reported a similar situation on his quad Xeon with 6G RAM whereby one of
the eepro100 interfaces was dead until one restarts it.
Starting to fiddle with eepr
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 09:25:47PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:34:30 +0800
>From: Andrey Savochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>page_table_lock is supposed to protect normal page table activity (like
>what's done in page fault handl
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:20:23AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 9. To Do
> > * mm->rss is modified in some places without holding the
> > page_table_lock (sct)
>
> Any of the mm gurus give the patch below a quick once over ?
> Is this adequate, or is there more to this
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:20:23AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
9. To Do
* mm-rss is modified in some places without holding the
page_table_lock (sct)
Any of the mm gurus give the patch below a quick once over ?
Is this adequate, or is there more to this than the
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 09:25:47PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:34:30 +0800
From: Andrey Savochkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
page_table_lock is supposed to protect normal page table activity (like
what's done in page fault handler) from swapping out
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 02:16:56PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> Patch: eepro100-speedo-debug-1
> From: Dragan Stancevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Debugging tweaks for eepro100 driver:
> * Add ioctl to adjust speedo_debug.
> * Print diagnostic when Tx ring fills up.
> * Adjust debugging level
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 12:45:47PM -0700, LA Walsh wrote:
> Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever been any
> thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?. I was on a
> server with 4 CPU's but only 2 SCSI disks. Many times I'll see 4 processes
> on disk
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 01:55:52PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> >
> > It's a waste of resources to reserve memory+swap for the case that every
> > running process decides to modify libc code (and, thus, should receive
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 11:45:02AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
[snip]
> "Overcommit" to me is the same things as Mark Hemment stated earlier in this
> thread -- the "fact that the system has over committed its memory resources.
> ie. it has sold too many tickets for the number of seats in the
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 01:10:30PM +0100, Mark Hemment wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > So you have run out of physical memory --- what do you do about it?
>
> Why let the system get into the state where it is neccessary to kill a
> process?
>
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 01:10:30PM +0100, Mark Hemment wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
So you have run out of physical memory --- what do you do about it?
Why let the system get into the state where it is neccessary to kill a
process?
Per-user/task
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 11:45:02AM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
[snip]
"Overcommit" to me is the same things as Mark Hemment stated earlier in this
thread -- the "fact that the system has over committed its memory resources.
ie. it has sold too many tickets for the number of seats in the plane,
Greg,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 11:42:11PM -0700, Greg Zhang wrote:
> I need to update the MAC address on a Intel 82559 ethernet card.
> Tried:
>
> # ifconfig eth0 down
> # ifconfig eth0 hw ether0 xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
> # ifconfig eth0 up
>
> It seems to take effect. Ping works. I have not had time
nt 3 full evenings last week working on this matter, no luck so far.
> > 2.2.17pre16
> [...]
> > o Switch eepro100 to I/O mode pending investigation
> > (Andrey Savochkin)
Best regards
last week working on this matter, no luck so far.
2.2.17pre16
[...]
o Switch eepro100 to I/O mode pending investigation
(Andrey Savochkin)
Best regards
Andrey V
Greg,
On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 11:42:11PM -0700, Greg Zhang wrote:
I need to update the MAC address on a Intel 82559 ethernet card.
Tried:
# ifconfig eth0 down
# ifconfig eth0 hw ether0 xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
# ifconfig eth0 up
It seems to take effect. Ping works. I have not had time to
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 06:31:34PM +0600, Andrey G. Kaplanov wrote:
> Respected colleagues!
>
> I have are problem of send SCM_RIGHTS message
> through AF_UNIX socket.
> Below - examples of server and client sources.
> Sendmsg gives an error : Invalid argument.
> That I do;make wrong?
Null
Hello,
I've uploaded the new version of user beancounter patch which introduces
control of system resources and protection for users against misbehavior of
other user's processes.
The recent changes include:
- new memory accounting (including pro rata accounting for shared pages) and
Hello,
I've uploaded the new version of user beancounter patch which introduces
control of system resources and protection for users against misbehavior of
other user's processes.
The recent changes include:
- new memory accounting (including pro rata accounting for shared pages) and
Stephen,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:55:06AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> In 2.2.17pre20 I started running into *really* annoying issues w/ an
> eepro100, I'm going to go back to 2.2.16 and see if they clear up. Basically
> things were constantly seeming to stall for me. Not everything
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:41:46AM -0400, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > But I expected 2.2.17pre20 to work, it contains a work-around which helped
> > all other people complaining about the same things.
>
> is it fixed i
Linus, but wasn't included in the kernel.
I'll try to work more on this problem this weekend and submit the new code.
Best regards
Andrey V.
Savochkin
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
[snip]
> >
, but wasn't included in the kernel.
I'll try to work more on this problem this weekend and submit the new code.
Best regards
Andrey V.
Savochkin
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
[snip]
But I expected
Stephen,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:55:06AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
In 2.2.17pre20 I started running into *really* annoying issues w/ an
eepro100, I'm going to go back to 2.2.16 and see if they clear up. Basically
things were constantly seeming to stall for me. Not everything
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 02:57:54PM -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
>
> I'm having endless problem with an eepro100 here. After some trying found out
> that doing a soft reset (ctrl+alt+del) fixed the problem, and that a power
> cycle made it happen again.
>
> Kernel version is
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:22:31AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:06:15PM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > So, I think that we have to be sure that we use the "best" address for this
> > destination.
> > What about an uncond
Andi,
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:45:06AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:22:42AM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > Andi, there may be two reasons of this behavior:
> > 1. skb that triggered ARP request had a.b.c.1 source, either because
> >a) the
Andi,
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:45:06AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:22:42AM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
Andi, there may be two reasons of this behavior:
1. skb that triggered ARP request had a.b.c.1 source, either because
a) the socket had been bound
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 11:22:31AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:06:15PM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
So, I think that we have to be sure that we use the "best" address for this
destination.
What about an unconditional use of inet_select_addr() or fib_s
Hello,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 02:57:54PM -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
I'm having endless problem with an eepro100 here. After some trying found out
that doing a soft reset (ctrl+alt+del) fixed the problem, and that a power
cycle made it happen again.
Kernel version is 2.2.17pre20
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 01:05:02PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 12:28:00PM +1100, David Luyer wrote:
[snip]
> > Now when the Linux box a.b.c.1 (with secondary address d.e.f.1) wants to
> > talk to the BSD/OS system d.e.f.2 it does
> >
> > a.b.c.1 arp who-has
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 05:47:01PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Things like random memory corruption from dropping dirty bits,
> > and some of the others are far more serious showstoppers alas
>
> Indeed, there are 4 major issues left in the VM
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
