Re: eepro100.c, kernel 2.4.1
Andrey Savochkin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:55:31 +0800
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:42:52AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> > It's the printk that gets it wrong, although that's harmless.
> > Intel's documentation states that the bug does NOT exist if the
> > bits 0 and 1 in eeprom are 1. Thus, the workaround is correct,
> > the printk is wrong.
> So why does it fix the problem for him. His report and your reply don't
> make sense viewed together
First of all, I have information that the bug may be in 82557 only.
Augustin, could you provide full information about your cards (including the
text printed by the driver at the initialization) and elaborate on "failing
under high load"?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/