[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:0.019 / U:9.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site