Am Fri, 08 Jan 2016 20:08:39 +
Eric Joyner schrieb:
> Does your i210 now work with the reverted version of igb? I didn't get a
> chance to follow up on this earlier.
>
> Also, can you give us the device ID for the device? There are a couple
> versions of the i210 hardware.
>
> - Eric
Not y
Does your i210 now work with the reverted version of igb? I didn't get a
chance to follow up on this earlier.
Also, can you give us the device ID for the device? There are a couple
versions of the i210 hardware.
- Eric
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:23 PM O. Hartmann
wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:52:57 -0700
Sean Bruno wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
>
> On 10/02/15 00:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:39:11 + Eric Joyner
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Oliver,
> >>
> >> did you try Sean's suggestion?
> >>
> >> - Eric
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/02/15 00:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:39:11 + Eric Joyner
> wrote:
>
>> Oliver,
>>
>> did you try Sean's suggestion?
>>
>> - Eric
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:10 PM Sean Bruno
>> wrote:
>>
>
>
> On 09/21/15
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:39:11 +
Eric Joyner wrote:
> Oliver,
>
> did you try Sean's suggestion?
>
> - Eric
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:10 PM Sean Bruno wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/21/15 23:23, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > > On Mon, 21
Am Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:39:11 +
Eric Joyner schrieb:
> Oliver,
>
> did you try Sean's suggestion?
>
> - Eric
Hello Eric,
no, sorry, not yet. Today was the first day with the igb-equipted servers and
tomorrow
(Friday) I will start to check whether Sean's suggestion helps or not.
In the sh
Oliver,
did you try Sean's suggestion?
- Eric
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:10 PM Sean Bruno wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
>
> On 09/21/15 23:23, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:13:18 + Eric Joyner
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If you do a diff between r28
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/21/15 23:23, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:13:18 + Eric Joyner
> wrote:
>
>> If you do a diff between r288057 and r287761, there are no
>> differences between the sys/dev/e1000, sys/modules/em, and
>> sys/modules/igb direc
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:13:18 +
Eric Joyner wrote:
> If you do a diff between r288057 and r287761, there are no differences
> between the sys/dev/e1000, sys/modules/em, and sys/modules/igb directories.
> Are you sure r287761 actually works?
I'm quite sure r287761 works (and r287762 doesn't),
If you do a diff between r288057 and r287761, there are no differences
between the sys/dev/e1000, sys/modules/em, and sys/modules/igb directories.
Are you sure r287761 actually works?
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM O. Hartmann
wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:23:44 -0700
> Sean Bruno wrote:
>
>
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:23:44 -0700
Sean Bruno wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
>
> On 09/18/15 10:20, Eric Joyner wrote:
> > He has an i210 -- he would want to revert e1000_i210.[ch], too.
> >
> > Sorry for the thrash Sean -- it sounds like it would be a good ide
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/18/15 10:20, Eric Joyner wrote:
> He has an i210 -- he would want to revert e1000_i210.[ch], too.
>
> Sorry for the thrash Sean -- it sounds like it would be a good idea
> for you should revert this patch, and Jeff and I can go look at
> try
Am Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:50:19 -0700
Sean Bruno schrieb:
>
> >
> > r287762 broke the system
>
>
> Before I revert this changeset *again* can you test revert r287762 from
> if_igb.c, e1000_82575.c and e1000_82575.h *only*
>
> That narrows down the change quite a bit.
>
> sean
I have no acces
He has an i210 -- he would want to revert e1000_i210.[ch], too.
Sorry for the thrash Sean -- it sounds like it would be a good idea for you
should revert this patch, and Jeff and I can go look at trying these shared
code updates and igb changes internally again. We at Intel really could've
done a
>
> r287762 broke the system
Before I revert this changeset *again* can you test revert r287762 from
if_igb.c, e1000_82575.c and e1000_82575.h *only*
That narrows down the change quite a bit.
sean
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https:/
.org] On Behalf Of Hans Petter Selasky
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:11 AM To: O. Hartmann
> > ; freebsd-current
> > Subject: Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken
> >
> > On 09/15/15 12:56, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > > Running CURRENT as of today (r287817), it see
nn
> ; freebsd-current
> Subject: Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken
>
> On 09/15/15 12:56, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > Running CURRENT as of today (r287817), it seems that the network system of
> > CURRENT is corrupted. The machine in question is a Fujitsu server Primergy
> >
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Hans Petter Selasky
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:11 AM
To: O. Hartmann ; freebsd-current
Subject: Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken
On 09/15/15 12:56, O. Hartmann wrote
On 09/15/15 12:56, O. Hartmann wrote:
Running CURRENT as of today (r287817), it seems that the network system of
CURRENT is corrupted. The machine in question is a Fujitsu server Primergy RX
1330 with two Intel "igb" devices (igb0 and igb1).
the network is now on both devices unreachable. With o
Running CURRENT as of today (r287817), it seems that the network system of
CURRENT is corrupted. The machine in question is a Fujitsu server Primergy RX
1330 with two Intel "igb" devices (igb0 and igb1).
the network is now on both devices unreachable. With or without IPFW
(disabling, having first
20 matches
Mail list logo
