Re: eepro100.c, kernel 2.4.1

[Andrey Savochkin]

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[3] 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"?

Best regards
		Andrey