Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Submission\s+\#3\s+for\s+S2io\s+10GbE\s+driver\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Submission\s+\#3\s+for\s+S2io\s+10GbE\s+driver\s*$/: 32 ]

Total 32 documents matching your query.

1. RE: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: <raghavendra.koushik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:51:40 +0530; Regarding Point # 37 [....] I agree that read/write(32,16,8) are not used so can be eliminated, but the read/write64 macros are essential because not all platforms have defined the readq and writeq; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00000.html (17,909 bytes)
2. RE: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: <raghavendra.koushik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:35:27 +0530; Hi Leonid, This automated signature will be gone from tomorrow. Our IMG guys are working on it and hopefully by then all mails going out from the s2io guys will not have this "Confidentiality Notice"; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00005.html (11,499 bytes)
3. RE: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: "Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:24:25 -0800; Sounds good, thanks! There are cases when the notice is required by Wipro of course, but in general it's either a nuisance or plain illegal. Let me know if you need any help from my end to get it re; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00006.html (14,143 bytes)
4. RE: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: <raghavendra.koushik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:16:22 +0530; Hi Jeff, Really sorry about that "confidentiality notice" that gets attached. I have asked my sysAdmin to get rid of it. He has promised to do so ASAP. Hope this mail does not have it attached at the; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00016.html (12,810 bytes)
5. Re: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:47:09 -0500; raghavendra.koushik@xxxxxxxxx wrote: Hi Jeff, Really sorry about that "confidentiality notice" that gets attached. I have asked my sysAdmin to get rid of it. He has promised to do so ASAP. Hope this; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00017.html (12,992 bytes)
6. RE: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:16:33 -0800; But tg3 checks this case also and returns 1: /* This is a hard error, log it. */ if (unlikely(TX_BUFFS_AVAIL(tp) <= (skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags + 1))) { netif_stop_queue(dev); ... return 1; } Does th; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00027.html (10,495 bytes)
7. Re: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:21:02 -0500; Feldman, Scott wrote: This is incorrect, and definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. As I said, the model is, the driver calls netif_stop_queue() after queueing a packet, when it knows there; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00028.html (11,265 bytes)
8. Re: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:33:07 -0800; Jeff Garzik wrote: tg3 needs to kfree the skb too, leading to my comment "some existing drivers get this wrong too". Requeueing the skb only occurs in -somepacket schedulers, not all. So drivers cann; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00029.html (10,512 bytes)
9. Re: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:38:02 -0500; Ben Greear wrote: I see lots of hard-start-xmit errors for e1000 and e100 in 2.4.25, and it's very nice to be able to retry. Lets fix the broken callers instead of making the drivers less useful. Let; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00030.html (9,535 bytes)
10. RE: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:47:48 -0800; Ok, e100 v3 is same model as tg3, and we think tg3 is correct, so we think e100 v3 is correct as well. Ben, e100 v3 probably isn't given you the effect you had with previous driver versions. It'll s; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00031.html (8,931 bytes)
11. Re: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:21:32 -0800; Feldman, Scott wrote: Let's fix the broken drivers first. Ok, e100 v3 is same model as tg3, and we think tg3 is correct, so we think e100 v3 is correct as well. Ben, e100 v3 probably isn't given you; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00032.html (10,317 bytes)
12. RE: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:55:37 -0800; Hi Jeff, Regarding comment #15, we don't think locking is required, because we just reflect what ever the statistics block is reflecting at the current moment. Thanks, Ravi --Original Message-- From:; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00222.html (9,651 bytes)
13. Re: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:30:54 -0500; ravinandan arakali wrote: Hi Jeff, Regarding comment #15, we don't think locking is required, because we just reflect what ever the statistics block is reflecting at the current moment. Cool. Jeff; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00225.html (9,357 bytes)
14. Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 07:08:11 -0800; Hi all, Attached is a patch file for the driver that addresses (hopefully :-)) all the comments we received for the submission #2. As always, thanks for everybody who took the time and effort to sugg; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00707.html (10,800 bytes)
15. Re: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: avem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:21:58 -0500; Looking a lot better. A few merge issues remain, and some operational ones as well. There are 39 issues in this review, but IMO they are mostly minor issues that don't require much thought or work. C; /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00710.html (20,013 bytes)
16. Re: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: nlap" <rddunlap@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 01:53:33 -0500; Regarding Point # 37 37) kill all of this: +/* OS related system calls */ + +#ifndef readq +static inline u64 read64(void *addr) +{ + u64 ret = 0; + ret = readl(addr + 4); + (u64) ret <<= 32; + (u64); /archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00739.html (9,775 bytes)
17. RE: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: <raghavendra.koushik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:51:40 +0530; Jeff, Regarding Point # 37 [....] I agree that read/write(32,16,8) are not used so can be eliminated, but the read/write64 macros are essential because not all platforms have defined the readq and wr; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00664.html (17,939 bytes)
18. RE: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: <raghavendra.koushik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:35:27 +0530; Hi Leonid, This automated signature will be gone from tomorrow. Our IMG guys are working on it and hopefully by then all mails going out from the s2io guys will not have this "Confidentiality Notice"; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00669.html (11,514 bytes)
19. RE: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: "Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:24:25 -0800; Sounds good, thanks! There are cases when the notice is required by Wipro of course, but in general it's either a nuisance or plain illegal. Let me know if you need any help from my end to get it re; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00670.html (14,221 bytes)
20. RE: Submission #3 for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1): Author: <raghavendra.koushik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:16:22 +0530; Hi Jeff, Really sorry about that "confidentiality notice" that gets attached. I have asked my sysAdmin to get rid of it. He has promised to do so ASAP. Hope this mail does not have it attached at the; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00680.html (12,825 bytes)

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