| To: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: acenic lockup |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 07 May 2003 12:34:21 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | anton@xxxxxxxxx, jes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200305071706.VAA00295@mops.inr.ac.ru> |
| References: | <20030506.234316.68138442.davem@redhat.com> <200305071706.VAA00295@mops.inr.ac.ru> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 21:06:32 +0400 (MSD) I remember we discussed this with Dave and he was very angry about this flaw shared by most of drivers and, seems, did not eat this fix. Yes, this netif_wake_queue() in acenic's watchdog routine is bogus. It is guarenteed lockup. Ok, I applied this. However, what does kick device back into working state? Do we make shamans dance when this message hits the logs and pray for the best? :-) |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] more direct access of dev->refcnt, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Linux and Wake-On-Lan, Peter Bieringer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: acenic lockup, Alexey Kuznetsov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: acenic lockup, Alexey Kuznetsov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |