Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+2\.4\.20\-pre\s+sundance\.c\s+update\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+2\.4\.20\-pre\s+sundance\.c\s+update\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] 2.4.20-pre sundance.c update (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:25:00 -0400; Attached is the patch I have against 2.4.20-pre-latest, to start fixing from as a baseline. It still has several flaws that were pointed out, but this is the base from which I would like testing and; /archives/netdev/2002-09/msg00211.html (50,672 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.20-pre sundance.c update (score: 1): Author: Jason Lunz <lunz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:56:21 -0400; what's the point of moving rx handling into rx_poll then running it in a tasklet? I've tested an older variant of that scheme from D-Link and it doesn't perform as well as my patch. It looks to me li; /archives/netdev/2002-09/msg00212.html (10,103 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.20-pre sundance.c update (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:11:41 -0400; ехословакии и Германии. В результате затопления огромным территориям этих стран нанесен ущер; /archives/netdev/2002-09/msg00214.html (11,084 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.20-pre sundance.c update (score: 1): Author: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:23:58 -0400 (EDT); ed in early 2001. Perhaps distinguishing this from my release would be useful. This is wrong. My driver starts searching for MII PHYs at #1 to avoid the quirks of accessing; /archives/netdev/2002-09/msg00219.html (12,501 bytes)
5. [PATCH] 2.4.20-pre sundance.c update (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:25:00 -0400; Attached is the patch I have against 2.4.20-pre-latest, to start fixing from as a baseline. It still has several flaws that were pointed out, but this is the base from which I would like testing and; /archives/netdev/2002-09/msg00589.html (50,889 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.20-pre sundance.c update (score: 1): Author: Jason Lunz <lunz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:56:21 -0400; what's the point of moving rx handling into rx_poll then running it in a tasklet? I've tested an older variant of that scheme from D-Link and it doesn't perform as well as my patch. It looks to me li; /archives/netdev/2002-09/msg00590.html (10,330 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.20-pre sundance.c update (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:11:41 -0400; It still has several flaws that were pointed out, but this is the base from which I would like testing and patching to proceed. (also hopefully the flaws are minor in terms of general operation) what; /archives/netdev/2002-09/msg00592.html (11,335 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] 2.4.20-pre sundance.c update (score: 1): Author: Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:23:58 -0400 (EDT); diff -Nru a/drivers/net/sundance.c b/drivers/net/sundance.c ... Please don't change the semantics of module parameters. All of my PCI network drivers have used this name for years with the same seman; /archives/netdev/2002-09/msg00597.html (12,540 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]