Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:06:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com (pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.125]) by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with SMTP id j0V961hX026465 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:06:01 -0800 Received: (qmail 28682 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2005 09:05:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?203.30.127.175?) (ncunningham@linuxmail.org@203.30.127.175) by pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2005 09:05:54 -0000 Subject: Re: 2.4.29, e100 and a WOL packet causes keventd going mad From: Nigel Cunningham Reply-To: ncunningham@linuxmail.org To: sfeldma@pobox.com Cc: David =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E4rdeman?= , Michael Gernoth , Linux Kernel Mailing List , netdev@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <1107152056.21273.56.camel@desktop.cunninghams> References: <20050130171849.GA3354@hardeman.nu> <1107143255.18167.428.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1107143905.21273.33.camel@desktop.cunninghams> <1107147615.18167.433.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1107152056.21273.56.camel@desktop.cunninghams> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1107162475.4234.26.camel@desktop.cunninghams> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6-1mdk Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:08:03 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/650/Sun Jan 2 19:00:02 2005 clamav-milter version 0.80j on 127.0.0.1 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 1060 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: ncunningham@linuxmail.org Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev Content-Length: 1101 Lines: 43 Hi again. Ignore that :> I realised later that there's only one badly named routine and my assumption that there was another called disable_.. was wrong :> Nigel On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 17:14, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 16:00, Scott Feldman wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 19:58, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > Do you also disable the WOL event when resuming? > > > > Good catch. How's this look? > > I looked at it last week because I used it for an example of device > model drivers at the CELF conference. I got your intel address from the > top of the .c file, but IIRC it bounced. Providence :> > > [...] > > > @@ -2333,6 +2331,7 @@ static int e100_resume(struct pci_dev *p > > struct nic *nic = netdev_priv(netdev); > > > > pci_set_power_state(pdev, PCI_D0); > > + pci_enable_wake(pdev, PCI_D0, 0); > > pci_restore_state(pdev); > > e100_hw_init(nic); > > Shouldn't this be disable_wake? > > Regards, > > Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia http://www.cyclades.com Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574