netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: r8169 driver in 2.6.6

To: Ray Cole <ray_cole@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: r8169 driver in 2.6.6
From: mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Luis R. Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 01:58:41 -0400
Cc: romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040525231140.1325daa7.ray_cole@earthlink.net>
Mail-followup-to: Ray Cole <ray_cole@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Rutgers University Student Linux Users Group
References: <20040524210148.2172d684.ray_cole@earthlink.net> <20040525091915.A12162@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20040525230831.4747005f.ray_cole@earthlink.net> <20040525231140.1325daa7.ray_cole@earthlink.net>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
God invented diff for a reason, you know?

        Luis

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:11:40PM -0500, Ray Cole wrote:
> Oh...forgot to mention where this line was at :-)  rtl8169_start_xmit is the 
> function...
> 
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:08:31 -0500
> Ray Cole <ray_cole@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I found the problem - I think.  At least I'll say I found a line of code 
> > that I modified and it started working :-)
> > 
> > Here is the offending line:
> > 
> >             tp->TxDescArray[entry].status = cpu_to_le32(OWNbit | FSbit |
> >                     LSbit | len | (EORbit * !((entry + 1) % NUM_TX_DESC)));
> > 
> > Here is what I changed it into (based on the 2.6.5 flavor of r8169.c):
> > 
> >             if (entry != (NUM_TX_DESC - 1))
> >                     tp->TxDescArray[entry].status =
> >                         (OWNbit | FSbit | LSbit) | len;
> >             else
> >                     tp->TxDescArray[entry].status =
> >                         (OWNbit | EORbit | FSbit | LSbit) | len;
> > 
> > Once I changed this it started working great.  I picked up on this when I 
> > noticed it was only sending 64 packets then failing.  I looked for 
> > differences in the way 2.6.5 and 2.6.6 handled a full transmit ring and 
> > this line looked suspicious...I figure it is perhaps a difference in the 
> > compiler I'm using (2.95.3) vs what others using this module are 
> > using...perhaps?
> > 
> > -- Ray              
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:19:15 +0200
> > Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ray Cole <ray_cole@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
> > > [...]
> > > > I was wondering if you were aware of such issues in the 2.6.6 flavor of
> > > > r8169.  If not, I'm more than willing to provide any information you 
> > > > need.
> > > 
> > > Nope, you are the first one. If time permits today, I'll check if the mobo
> > > appears on the usual suspects list.
> > > 
> > > >  Either way I'm more than willing to try any patches for it.
> > > 
> > > Nice :o)
> > > 
> > > > Attach is my config for the kernel in case that helps.  Oh, BTW, I don't
> > > > actually have a gigbit network - running a 100M network.  I don't know 
> > > > if
> > > > that makes any difference or not.  I also don't see any error messages 
> > > > when
> > > 
> > > It may make things simpler.
> > > 
> > > > the network stops working (aside from my application, which simply 
> > > > reports
> > > > a timeout error communicating with the POP email server :-)
> > > 
> > > Some more information may help. Typically:
> > > - lspci -vx output
> > > - dmesg after boot and insertion of the module (usually a combination of
> > >   /var/log/dmesg and 'dmesg' output as this one may be truncated)
> > > - lsmod output
> > > - /proc/interrupts contents before/after foobar
> > > - which (if any) was the latest known working kernel, be it 2.4.x or 2.6.x
> > >   (2.5.5 apparently) ?
> > > - can you enumerate all the dysfunctionnal kernel ?
> > > - which distribution/compiler ?
> > > - does it still fail if you do a simple 'ping' for an extended period of
> > >   time instead of pop (same thing with lengthy ftp/http transfer, say a 
> > > file
> > >   of a few megs) ?
> > > 
> > > A few things you may want to try:
> > > - disable ACPI (acpi=none on the boot cmd line, do not confuse it with 
> > > APIC)
> > > - PREEMPT may change a few things though it is less on the radar than ACPI
> > > - 
> > > http://www.fr.zoreil.com/people/francois/misc/20040525-2.6.7-rc1-r8169.c-test.patch
> > >  applied on 2.6.6 (some link related things may come into play but
> > >   I am a bit sceptical)
> > > - as the system does not hang (only the network trafic), can you see if
> > >   it makes a difference if you
> > >   - ifconfig down/up the network card ?
> > >   - same thing + removal/insertion of the driver ?
> > >   - unplug/plug again the cable (wait for 10~15 seconds then) ?
> > >   -> dmesg output welcome.
> > > 
> > > Please Cc: future traffic to netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx as well (if you can tell
> > > sylphid to cut the lines at 72/80 chars, I will not complain either :o) ).
> > > 
> > > Do not hesitate to ping me if you feel like I forget your problem (I try
> > > to avoid it but it may happen).
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Ueimor
> 

-- 
GnuPG Key fingerprint = 113F B290 C6D2 0251 4D84  A34A 6ADD 4937 E20A 525E

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>