Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\:\s+r8169\:\s+Expose\s+hardware\s+stats\s+via\s+ethtool\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\:\s+r8169\:\s+Expose\s+hardware\s+stats\s+via\s+ethtool\s*$/: 34 ]

Total 34 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 13:53:36 +0000; Ben Greear wrote: Jeff Garzik wrote: Jon Mason wrote: I think I've found a (very hackish) way around the bad stats error. Tested on amd64, and "solves" the problem. Seems to me, we should instead fi; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg00259.html (9,274 bytes)
2. [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:53:55 +0000; Hi Francois and Jon! Please find attached a patch that adds the hardware statistics ethtool operations to the r8169 driver. It's against 2.6.11-rc5. Signed-Off-By: Richard Dawe <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00922.html (16,485 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:57:02 -0500; Richard Dawe wrote: Hi Francois and Jon! Please find attached a patch that adds the hardware statistics ethtool operations to the r8169 driver. It's against 2.6.11-rc5. Signed-Off-By: Richard Dawe <r; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00923.html (12,448 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: ik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:32:29 -0600; Good Work! I'll give it a try here in a little bit. [...] Can you confirm that the registers are outputting these bogus values? See comments below. <paste from attachment> -- linux-2.6.11-rc5/drivers; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00925.html (16,966 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:02:46 -0500; Jon Mason wrote: On Saturday 26 February 2005 08:53 am, Richard Dawe wrote: Hi Francois and Jon! Please find attached a patch that adds the hardware statistics ethtool operations to the r8169 driver.; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00926.html (16,316 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author:; Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:03:42 -0500; Also, please turn on word wrap in your mailer.; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00927.html (9,790 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: enek Radouch <zdenek@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:12:13 +0100; Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> : [...] Btw I'd simply remove the 'work' variable and schedule in an interruptible way until the dump is done. BUG() is a bit exagerated imho. -- Ueimor; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00928.html (11,593 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: awe <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:26:58 +0100; Richard Dawe <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> : You don't want to free it it was not allocated. Please undo the previous step (init_ring probably) and: 1) use the form "goto err_descriptive_name_for_the_r; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00929.html (10,682 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: rzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:36:17 -0600; My suggestion was based on code uniformity (as the rest of the values are defined as dex or decimal numbers). Which takes presidense, uniformity or readablity? If it is the latter, should the rest of; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00930.html (12,129 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: hfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:28:41 -0600; I tested it on my amd64 system and it works great. I saw the same error if stats were gathered with the interface was down. As a sanity check, I preformed the same test on e1000 and it does not have; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00947.html (9,327 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:44:20 +0000; Francois Romieu wrote: Richard Dawe <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> : [...] @@ -1531,6 +1620,11 @@ static int rtl8169_open(struct net_devic if (retval < 0) goto err_free_rx; + tp->nic_stats = pci_alloc_; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00953.html (10,978 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:46:50 +0000; Jeff Garzik wrote: Richard Dawe wrote: [snip] +static const char rtl8169_gstrings_stats[][ETH_GSTRING_LEN] = { + "tx_ok", "rx_ok", "tx_err", "rx_err", + "rx_fifo", "frame_align", "tx_ok_1col", "tx_o; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00954.html (11,661 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:53:42 +0000; Thanks for reviewing, Francois, Jon & Jeff! Francois Romieu wrote: [snip] Btw I'd simply remove the 'work' variable and schedule in an interruptible way until the dump is done. OK, that will take me; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00955.html (11,245 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: m Scientific <Info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:59:45 -0500; Richard Dawe wrote: BUG() is a bit exagerated imho. It seems like a pretty good way of avoiding a buffer overrun to me. E.g.: you copy an extra statistic in rtl8169_get_ethtool_stats(), but forget to; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00956.html (10,758 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:31:12 -0600; I think I've found a (very hackish) way around the bad stats error. Tested on amd64, and "solves" the problem. -- drivers/net/r8169.c 2005-02-27 20:27:48.000000000 -0600 +++ drivers/net/r8169.c.new 2; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00959.html (10,451 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: Dawe <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:58:52 -0500; Jon Mason wrote: I think I've found a (very hackish) way around the bad stats error. Tested on amd64, and "solves" the problem. Seems to me, we should instead find a way to avoid calling the stats fu; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00961.html (10,317 bytes)
17. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:16:22 -0800; Jeff Garzik wrote: Jon Mason wrote: I think I've found a (very hackish) way around the bad stats error. Tested on amd64, and "solves" the problem. Seems to me, we should instead find a way to avoid c; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00963.html (11,039 bytes)
18. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: Richard Dawe <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 13:53:36 +0000; Hello. I think I've found a (very hackish) way around the bad stats error. Tested on amd64, and "solves" the problem. Seems to me, we should instead find a way to avoid calling the stats function if; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg02182.html (9,623 bytes)
19. [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: Richard Dawe <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:53:55 +0000; Hi Francois and Jon! Please find attached a patch that adds the hardware statistics ethtool operations to the r8169 driver. It's against 2.6.11-rc5. Signed-Off-By: Richard Dawe <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01942.html (16,261 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH]: r8169: Expose hardware stats via ethtool (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:57:02 -0500; Please find attached a patch that adds the hardware statistics ethtool operations to the r8169 driver. It's against 2.6.11-rc5. Signed-Off-By: Richard Dawe <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Basically it's; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01943.html (12,447 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]