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

Bug#373593: marked as done (kernel: e1000 wake on lan (wol) does not work after 2.6.12)



Your message dated Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:04:30 +0200
with message-id <20060911130430.GT4868@baikonur.stro.at>
and subject line Bug#373593: seems to work since 2.6.17
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---

Package: kernel
Severity: normal

Hello,

when upgrading from linux-image-2.6.12-1-686_2.6.12-10_i386.deb

to any of
- linux-image-2.6.14-2-686_2.6.14-7_i386.deb
- linux-image-2.6.15-1-686_2.6.15-8_i386.deb
- linux-image-2.6.16-2-686_2.6.16-14_i386.deb
- vanilla 2.6.15

wake on lan (wol) doesn't work any more with my e1000 card
(Intel PRO/1000 MT Desktop Adapter with the e1000 driver).

After shutting down linux, the link led is off now (nic and switch), and
wol is not possible. wol is possible and working fine after starting and
shutting down Windows 2000, or Linux kernel 2.6.12, where link led stays on
on both nic and switch.

I found a similar issue here with the sk98lin driver:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?t=444793
but ethtool is working for me with e1000.


Martin


-- System Information:
Architecture: i386 (i686)


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:24:13AM +0200, Martin Koeppe wrote:
> 
> Wake on lan seems to work again since 2.6.17,
> i.e. I successfully tested:
> 
> linux-image-2.6.17-2-686_2.6.17-8_i386.deb
> 
> Martin

thanks for the feedback, closing the report.

-- 
maks

--- End Message ---

Reply to: