Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Dec 2001 02:26:10 +0100 | From | Kurt Roeckx <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] eepro100 - need testers |
| |
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:57:35PM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote: > -#define TX_RING_SIZE 32 > -#define RX_RING_SIZE 32 > +#define TX_RING_SIZE 64 > +#define RX_RING_SIZE 1024
Why do I have the feeling that you're just changing those values so you get less chance of having the problem? Are there any other reason why you change this? It might even be a good idea to test it with lower values.
> - } else if ((status & 0x003c) == 0x0008) { /* No resources. */ > - struct RxFD *rxf; > - printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: card reports no resources.\n", > - dev->name);
[...]
> + switch ((status >> 2) & 0xf) { > + case 0: /* Idle */ > + break; > + case 1: /* Suspended */ > + case 2: /* No resources (RxFDs) */ > + case 9: /* Suspended with no more RBDs */ > + case 10: /* No resources due to no RBDs */ > + case 12: /* Ready with no RBDs */ > + speedo_rx_soft_reset(dev); > + break;
You can also argue that you're trying to fix the problem by hiding it. It would be useful that it still reported the same error message, so you can see that if it happens again with the patch that it no longer locks up.
Kurt
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |