Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Submission\s+for\s+S2io\s+10GbE\s+driver\s*$/: 38 ]

Total 38 documents matching your query.

1. RE: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: ika Penttilä <mika.penttila@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:16:35 -0800
Hi all, Attached is the second submission for our 10GbE Adapter. Many thanks for the input; I believe we have addressed all the comments to date (I cc everybody who helped us with the comments, to ma
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00392.html (11,194 bytes)

2. Re: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: udrala <sri@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:12:40 -0500
Leonid Grossman wrote: 1. At the moment, lspci output looks like "02:02.0 Ethernet controller: Unknown device 17d5:5831 (rev 02)"; do we need to submit a patch for drivers/pci/pci.ids? http://pciids.
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00394.html (11,299 bytes)

3. RE: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: Schlenstedt <Michael-ml-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:53:15 -0800
Done, thanks for the pointer! I think it will be a good idea to have full support for skb frags in general, and not just for our product. Please let me know if there is a consensus (and hopefully a
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00395.html (10,433 bytes)

4. Re: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: ika Penttilä <mika.penttila@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:11:12 +0000
A bunch of comments: - if you want to submit the driver for inclusion please submit a patch against a kernel tree, not a tarball. - please try to avoid version ifdefs by provoding the newer APIs on o
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00396.html (11,530 bytes)

5. Re: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: x
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:16:31 -0800
The proper way for that is:
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00397.html (11,223 bytes)

6. Re: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 03:14:46 -0500
raghavendra.koushik@xxxxxxxxx wrote: Hi Jeff, 1. points 7 and 8, when initSharedMem returns error, I call freeSharedMem which should free any partially alloced memory. For #8 quite possibly, and if s
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00459.html (11,590 bytes)

7. RE: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:46:38 +0530
Hi Jeff, 1. points 7 and 8, when initSharedMem returns error, I call freeSharedMem which should free any partially alloced memory. 2. For point 17 and 33 We do support IPV6 checksum offload. There is
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00460.html (19,213 bytes)

8. RE: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: em@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:33:35 -0800
Hi Jeff, For #7, the temporary variable tmp_v_addr is assigned as follows (immediately below the code you have quoted): In the freeSharedMem() routine, we go thru' each block of each receive ring and
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00495.html (11,964 bytes)

9. RE: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:59:59 -0800
Hi Jeff, Since the whole nic structure is zeroed out initially, the "block_virt_addr" is initially NULL. So, if the allocation succeeds, it will hold a non-NULL value. So, in the freeSharedMem() if w
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00496.html (10,683 bytes)

10. Re: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: ut@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:30:00 -0500
ravinandan arakali wrote: Hi Jeff, Since the whole nic structure is zeroed out initially, the "block_virt_addr" is initially NULL. So, if the allocation succeeds, it will hold a non-NULL value. So, i
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00497.html (9,573 bytes)

11. RE: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:33:53 +0530
some questions on few of your comments. When link goes down and I just call netif_carrier_off the upper layer still continues to send packets to the s2io_xmit routine. In order to avoid this, I stop
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00628.html (19,553 bytes)

12. Re: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:40:48 -0500
some questions on few of your comments. 30) do not call netif_stop_queue() and netif_wake_queue() on link events, in s2io_link. Simply call netif_carrier_{on,off}. When link goes down and I just call
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00664.html (12,031 bytes)

13. FW: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: ilfinger <c-d.hailfinger.kernel.2003@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:22:11 -0800
Hi all, Please fund attached a source code for S2io 10GbE adapter (with some disclaimers below). Send me your comments/suggestions on the source please, and we will address the code changes (if any)
/archives/netdev/2004-01/msg00507.html (10,253 bytes)

14. Re: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:54:14 -0800
Okay, but next time how about only sending the source of the driver as a kernel patch. Not a whole build directory including binaries and CVS!
/archives/netdev/2004-01/msg00508.html (9,194 bytes)

15. RE: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: las Pollock <douglas.pollock@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:58:14 -0800
Will do next time. Leonid
/archives/netdev/2004-01/msg00509.html (8,963 bytes)

16. Re: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:21:34 -0800
Noticed the setup loopback test seems to register for a packet type and then forget to unregister that type! Also nothing really restricts the packet type to only coming in on the expected interface;
/archives/netdev/2004-01/msg00513.html (9,462 bytes)

17. RE: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:32:48 -0800
Hi Stephen, Below are responses from our developer. Thanks for the input, Leonid The packet type gets unregistered at the end of the test in the 'reset_loopback' function through the system call 'dev
/archives/netdev/2004-01/msg00628.html (10,885 bytes)

18. RE: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: an.oravec@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:19:47 -0800
I see the point; we'll go ahead and get rid of the loopback. We actually have pretty extensive standalone diag tool that is based on diag driver. Thanks, Leonid
/archives/netdev/2004-01/msg00629.html (10,129 bytes)

19. Re: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: rick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:08:32 -0500
Leonid Grossman wrote: The loopback test is there as a part of the ethtool's diagnostic option. There are pros and cons of having the test in there I guess, anyone else has an opinion on this? Do oth
/archives/netdev/2004-01/msg00682.html (10,494 bytes)

20. RE: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver (score: 1)
Author: "Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:16:35 -0800
Hi all, Attached is the second submission for our 10GbE Adapter. Many thanks for the input; I believe we have addressed all the comments to date (I cc everybody who helped us with the comments, to ma
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg01133.html (11,224 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu