Bug#506419: Driver from Supermicro fixes issue
martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> writes:
> The attached patch against linux-2.6 2.6.26-11 seems to fix the
> original problem for me, but I have not had a chance to verify the
> second ('downstream') problem I identified in the bug report.
>
> The patch is based on the driver source I obtained via Transtec from
> Supermicro, the board manufacturer. It's quite ugly and big and
> I don't have the time to dissect it right now, but if you want me to
> try out particulars, I will.
Hmm, this part of your patch looks a lot like half of
edcfe5f7e307846e578fb88d69fa27051fded0ab which Bastian already has
pointed you to:
> @@ -5417,11 +6978,15 @@ static int __devinit nv_probe(struct pci_dev *pci_dev, const struct pci_device_i
> if (id->driver_data & DEV_HAS_LARGEDESC)
> np->pkt_limit = NV_PKTLIMIT_2;
>
> + dev->mtu = ETH_DATA_LEN;
> +
> if (id->driver_data & DEV_HAS_CHECKSUM) {
> np->rx_csum = 1;
> np->txrxctl_bits |= NVREG_TXRXCTL_RXCHECK;
> - dev->features |= NETIF_F_HW_CSUM | NETIF_F_SG;
> + dev->features |= NETIF_F_IP_CSUM|NETIF_F_SG;
> +#ifdef NETIF_F_TSO
> dev->features |= NETIF_F_TSO;
> +#endif
> }
>
> np->vlanctl_bits = 0;
This should not apply against linux-2.6 2.6.26-11 since it is already a
part of debian/patches/bugfix/all/stable/2.6.26.4.patch. Are you sure
your patch really does apply? If it does, then I'd suggest trying
*just* edcfe5f7e307846e578fb88d69fa27051fded0ab instead.
BTW, I also noticed that linux-2.6 2.6.26-11 includes the patch
linux-2.6-2.6.26/debian/patches/features/all/net-use-gso.patch
which very well may trigger the problem. You might also want to try
building without that patch.
In fact, I'm a little confused as to the reasons that patch is in
Debian. It is probably the correct thing to do, but it is also the kind
of thing that is bound to cause regressions because it will expose
latent bugs in drivers.
But then again, there's your performance requirements. I guess you'd
better get a proper NIC :-)
Bjørn
--
You have the narrow-mindedness of a disease carrier
Reply to: