Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*changing\s+MTU\s+on\s+b44\s+breaks\s+eth0\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*changing\s+MTU\s+on\s+b44\s+breaks\s+eth0\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:53:35 +0200; Heh Thanks for the report. Looking at the code and previous bugs in it, I can safely say I found the problem and a few similar ones that could be triggered when using ethtool :-) Anyway, here's a (un; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00025.html (11,259 bytes)
2. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: vem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:16:18 -0800; I think Jeff should merge this upstrea, but I really disagree with the CONFIG_PM ifdefs for the power-management support.; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00029.html (8,376 bytes)
3. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: vem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:15:55 +0200; Fine with me (patch with CONFIG_PM removed included) Oh btw., when trying out whether the new code even compiles/loads I got the following in rmmod, does it look like something caused by generic code; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00030.html (14,118 bytes)
4. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 09:13:55 -0800; free_netdev() is being invoked before the device registration state advanced to NETREG_UNREGISTERED, likely unregister_netdev() has not been called first or a bogus pointer was passed into the routin; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00037.html (8,824 bytes)
5. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: vem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 23:19:37 +0200; Ah, like a missing SET_NETDEV_DEV? :-) I still got reliable rtnetlink_fill_ifinfo oopses (quick debugging showed strlen(dev->qdisc_sleeping->ops->id); to be the location of the oops), which went away; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00039.html (12,069 bytes)
6. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: <pp@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:20:17 -0800; Wonderful, Jeff please integrate this b44 patch from Pekka.; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00040.html (9,133 bytes)
7. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: ler" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:36:40 -0500; David S. Miller wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 23:19:37 +0200 Pekka Pietikainen <pp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 09:13:55AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: free_netdev() is being invoked befor; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00068.html (10,193 bytes)
8. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: zik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:35:16 -0800; The most recent one did, I'll forward to you under seperate cover.; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00069.html (9,194 bytes)
9. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: ler" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:02:44 +0100; Hi all, sorry for the late answer. I tried to apply the patch mentionned below, and it reject at Hunk #1. I run linux 2.4.22, my b44.c carry version 0.9. Can you please send me the full b44.c file so; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00097.html (16,934 bytes)
10. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: Pekka Pietikainen <pp@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:53:35 +0200; Heh Thanks for the report. Looking at the code and previous bugs in it, I can safely say I found the problem and a few similar ones that could be triggered when using ethtool :-) Anyway, here's a (un; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00638.html (11,379 bytes)
11. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:16:18 -0800; I think Jeff should merge this upstrea, but I really disagree with the CONFIG_PM ifdefs for the power-management support.; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00642.html (8,494 bytes)
12. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: Pekka Pietikainen <pp@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:15:55 +0200; Fine with me (patch with CONFIG_PM removed included) Oh btw., when trying out whether the new code even compiles/loads I got the following in rmmod, does it look like something caused by generic code; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00643.html (14,281 bytes)
13. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 09:13:55 -0800; free_netdev() is being invoked before the device registration state advanced to NETREG_UNREGISTERED, likely unregister_netdev() has not been called first or a bogus pointer was passed into the routin; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00650.html (9,010 bytes)
14. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: Pekka Pietikainen <pp@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 23:19:37 +0200; Ah, like a missing SET_NETDEV_DEV? :-) I still got reliable rtnetlink_fill_ifinfo oopses (quick debugging showed strlen(dev->qdisc_sleeping->ops->id); to be the location of the oops), which went away; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00652.html (12,299 bytes)
15. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:20:17 -0800; Wonderful, Jeff please integrate this b44 patch from Pekka.; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00653.html (9,384 bytes)
16. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:36:40 -0500; free_netdev() is being invoked before the device registration state advanced to NETREG_UNREGISTERED, likely unregister_netdev() has not been called first or a bogus pointer was passed into the routi; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00681.html (10,427 bytes)
17. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:35:16 -0800; The most recent one did, I'll forward to you under seperate cover.; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00682.html (9,501 bytes)
18. Re: changing MTU on b44 breaks eth0 (score: 1): Author: Charles Bueche <charles@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:02:44 +0100; Hi all, sorry for the late answer. I tried to apply the patch mentionned below, and it reject at Hunk #1. I run linux 2.4.22, my b44.c carry version 0.9. Can you please send me the full b44.c file so; /archives/netdev/2003-11/msg00710.html (17,120 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]