| To: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Problem with 2.4.24 e1000 and keepalived |
| From: | Willy Tarreau <willy@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:46:05 +0100 |
| Cc: | Willy Tarreau <willy@xxxxxxxxx>, Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3FFD0FAE.8050705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20040107200556.0d553c40.skraw@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040107210255.GA545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3FFCC430.4060804@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040108052000.GA8829@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3FFD0FAE.8050705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4i |
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:07:10AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > No, I meant what I said: You have to tell many drivers to bring the > interface > up before they will attempt (or at least report) link negotiation. > You do NOT have to give it an IP address or add any routes to it. ah, OK. No, anyway, it is just a matter of wrongly detecting link state after the link has been plugged while the interface was already UP, no matter if an IP was set or not. > But, I don't know about your particular program, I just suspect it > is related to detecting link state. I think tg3 detects link when > the interface is not UP, if you have some tg3 nics maybe you could > try with them? As far as I have tested, tg3 are fine WRT this. Willy |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Problem with 2.4.24 e1000 and keepalived, Stephan von Krawczynski |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Problem with 2.4.24 e1000 and keepalived, Willy Tarreau |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Problem with 2.4.24 e1000 and keepalived, Ben Greear |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Problem with 2.4.24 e1000 and keepalived, Stephan von Krawczynski |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |