The first log file is with both patchs applied and the second one with one
little change to rx8139_rx() to show if it even goes to through
" while (netif_running(dev) && received < budget
&& (RTL_R8 (ChipCmd) & RxBufEmpty) == 0) {"-section.
This was the change which I made.. so you can see in the second log file
that there won't be any of these messages after the driver has crashed.
If you remove the "if (received > 0) {" test in r8139-10.patch and keep
both patches applied, I assume you are back to a crash within 15min (instead
of within 2min as suggested by the log), right ?
--
Ueimor
From: Pasi Sjoholm <hidden> Date: 2004-08-03 20:19:59
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Francois Romieu wrote:
quoted
The first log file is with both patchs applied and the second one with one
little change to rx8139_rx() to show if it even goes to through
" while (netif_running(dev) && received < budget
&& (RTL_R8 (ChipCmd) & RxBufEmpty) == 0) {"-section.
This was the change which I made.. so you can see in the second log file
that there won't be any of these messages after the driver has crashed.
If you remove the "if (received > 0) {" test in r8139-10.patch and keep
both patches applied, I assume you are back to a crash within 15min (instead
of within 2min as suggested by the log), right ?
Hmm,
I removed "if (received > 0) {" and tested it something like 3 hours and
wasn't able to crash the driver. I will test it for couple more hours
tomorrow and if I'm not still able the crash it, we may have find some
sort of a solution.
I'm not sure yet if it's a good one because of that earlier crash I had.
I guess I will also test if
- read the interruption status word that the driver will ack before the
actual processing is done;
has something to do it.
We'll see.. I'll get back to you tomorrow with more information.
--
Pasi Sjöholm
From: Pasi Sjoholm <hidden> Date: 2004-08-04 16:27:35
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Pasi Sjoholm wrote:
quoted
If you remove the "if (received > 0) {" test in r8139-10.patch and keep
both patches applied, I assume you are back to a crash within 15min (instead
of within 2min as suggested by the log), right ?
I removed "if (received > 0) {" and tested it something like 3 hours and
wasn't able to crash the driver. I will test it for couple more hours
tomorrow and if I'm not still able the crash it, we may have find some
sort of a solution.
I'm not sure yet if it's a good one because of that earlier crash I had.
I guess I will also test if
"- read the interruption status word that the driver will ack before the
actual processing is done;" has something to do with it.
Ok, now I have tested it for 6 hours without crashing the driver. The
system's load has been something like 5-6 the whole time. I also made some
network load with ~90Mbps-incoming and ~90Mbps-outgoing traffic.
I haven't had time to test anything else but I'm quite sure that there is
no need for that anymore because the stability we have reached.
I'll let you know if there's any problems within next few days but I would
recommend that those patches would be included in 2.6.8. (without that "if
(received > 0) {").
Many thanks for your help to resolve this problem.
Hector, have you tested these patches?
--
Pasi Sjöholm
From: Hector Martin <hidden> Date: 2004-08-05 10:17:47
Pasi Sjoholm wrote:
Ok, now I have tested it for 6 hours without crashing the driver. The
system's load has been something like 5-6 the whole time. I also made some
network load with ~90Mbps-incoming and ~90Mbps-outgoing traffic.
I haven't had time to test anything else but I'm quite sure that there is
no need for that anymore because the stability we have reached.
I'll let you know if there's any problems within next few days but I would
recommend that those patches would be included in 2.6.8. (without that "if
(received > 0) {").
Many thanks for your help to resolve this problem.
Hector, have you tested these patches?
Wow.. I gotta learn some more about kernel hacking someday.. lol
I applied both (new) -10 and -20 patches and removed the test.
I doubled the debug-messages that get sent to the PC (the UDP traffic)
but it froze (the sender) and stopped sending them after 5 minutes. I
guess that's because of the crappy TCP/IP stack on the other side (this
is a PlayStation2 application i'm developing, and the homebrew PS2
TCP/IP stack doesn't have a good reputation.) I'm back to normal
debugging, I'll test it for a couple of hours. So far, no problem.
From: Hector Martin <hidden> Date: 2004-08-05 10:57:49
Hector Martin escribió:
Pasi Sjoholm wrote:
quoted
Ok, now I have tested it for 6 hours without crashing the driver. The
system's load has been something like 5-6 the whole time. I also made
some network load with ~90Mbps-incoming and ~90Mbps-outgoing traffic.
I haven't had time to test anything else but I'm quite sure that
there is no need for that anymore because the stability we have reached.
I'll let you know if there's any problems within next few days but I
would recommend that those patches would be included in 2.6.8.
(without that "if (received > 0) {").
Many thanks for your help to resolve this problem.
Hector, have you tested these patches?
Wow.. I gotta learn some more about kernel hacking someday.. lol
I applied both (new) -10 and -20 patches and removed the test.
I doubled the debug-messages that get sent to the PC (the UDP traffic)
but it froze (the sender) and stopped sending them after 5 minutes. I
guess that's because of the crappy TCP/IP stack on the other side
(this is a PlayStation2 application i'm developing, and the homebrew
PS2 TCP/IP stack doesn't have a good reputation.) I'm back to normal
debugging, I'll test it for a couple of hours. So far, no problem.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Ugh.. it stopped sending them again. Now I doubled them again and I'm
using a stabler TCP/IP stack. This one works OK. No problem so far...
anyway, even though it stopped and I had to restart the PS2 some times,
the PC has been receiving packets with no reboot whatsoever. I think
it's fixed :)
Now I have to tackle a completely different problem with TCP connections
on linux, but that's another story :)