[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: My vote against eepro* removal
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 17:19 -0800, John Ronciak wrote:
> On 1/20/06, Lee Revell <> wrote:
> > Seems like the important question is, why does e100 need a watchdog if
> > eepro100 works fine without one? Isn't the point of a watchdog in this
> > context to work around other bugs in the driver (or the hardware)?
> There are a number of things that the watchdog in e100 does. It
> checks link (up, down), reads the hardware stats, adjusts the adaptive
> IFS and checks to 3 known hang conditions based on certain types of
> the hardware. You might be able to get around without doing the
> work-arounds (as long as you don't' see hangs happening with the
> hardware being used) but the checking of the link and the stats are
> probably needed.

Why don't these cause excessive scheduling delays in eepro100 then?
Can't we just copy the eepro100 behavior?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-21 02:33    [W:0.040 / U:2.192 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site