> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:00:27AM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > It seems to me that the old tx_full stuff is working better that the > > new tx_free. > > What problem are you seeing without making any changes to the > code as it > stands?
I have impl. the NAPI method in enet.c and had removed the spin_lock_irq() in the xmit procedure since I don't belive I need these any more and all was well. Then I discoverd I had forgotten to apply the tx_free change so I added it and then I got an oops. Restoring the spin_lock_irq() makes the behaviour identical. Thats why I wonder what race they are supposed to fix since the only difference I get is the above oops on a mpc862. Something I find a bit odd is that I can run ping -s 1472 -f <myTargetIp> without problems, but if i "jump start" the ping with "ping -s 800 -f <myTargetIp> -l 8" I start to loose packages. Ifconfig shows no errors for both cases. Do you get the same? Jocke ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
