Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2016-01-09 Thread O. Hartmann
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.

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2016-01-08 Thread Eric Joyner
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

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-10-04 Thread O. Hartmann
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

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-10-02 Thread Sean Bruno
-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

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-10-02 Thread O. Hartmann
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

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-10-01 Thread Eric Joyner
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 > >

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-10-01 Thread O. Hartmann
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

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-22 Thread O. Hartmann
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

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-22 Thread Sean Bruno
-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 >>

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-21 Thread Eric Joyner
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

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-21 Thread O. Hartmann
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

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-19 Thread Sean Bruno
-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 >

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-18 Thread O. Hartmann
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. > >

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-18 Thread Sean Bruno
> > 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

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-18 Thread Eric Joyner
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

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-17 Thread O. Hartmann
ember 15, 2015 4:11 AM To: O. Hartmann > <ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de>; freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> > 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 s

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-17 Thread O. Hartmann
sd-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 > > <ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de>; freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> > > Subject: Re: CUR

RE: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-15 Thread Pieper, Jeffrey E
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 RX > 1330 with two Intel "igb" devices (igb0 and igb1).

Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

2015-09-15 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
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