[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#49564: marked as done (gnumach detects VMware's ethernet card twice)

Your message dated Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:47:46 +0200
with message-id <20140822234746.GA23730@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr>
and subject line Re: Bug#49564: gnumach detects VMware's ethernet card twice
has caused the Debian Bug report #49564,
regarding gnumach detects VMware's ethernet card twice
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

49564: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=49564
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: gnumach
Version: 1:1.2-2

Starting up gnumach under VMware 1.1 build-317, I see (transcribed by
  The PCI BIOS has not enabled the AMD Ethernet device at  0-80.  Updating PCI command 0001->0005.
eth0: PCnet/PCI II 79C970A at 0x1000, 00 50 56 81 0b 4e
pcnet32.c:v0.99B 4/4/98 DJBecker/TSBogend.
and later...
Found PCnet/PCI at 0x1000, irq 9.
eth1: PCnet/PCI-II 79C970A at 0x1000, 00 50 56 81 0b 4e assigned IRQ 9, no DMA needed.
lance.c:v1.14 2/3/1998 dplatt@3do.com, becker@cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov

This looks as if the (virtual) ethernet card is being detected twice.  I
haven't got the HURD to start up yet, so I don't know whether either
instance will actually work, but there should presumably only be one of

Ben Harris
Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service.
E-mail: bjh21@cam.ac.uk  Tel: +44 (0)1223 334728  Fax: +44 (0)1223 334679

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2:1.3.99.dfsg.git20120610-1

Network drivers are not in gnumach any more, we use linux 2.6.32 drivers.


--- End Message ---

Reply to: