From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:54:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:54:30 -0400 Received: from vp175062.reshsg.uci.edu ([128.195.175.62]:11529 "EHLO moisil.badula.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:54:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:54:14 -0700 Message-Id: <200106062154.f56LsE115507@moisil.badula.org> From: Ion Badulescu To: "Tom Sightler" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.5-ac9 In-Reply-To: <002e01c0eead$03c6d890$26040a0a@zeusinc.com> User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.19 (i586)) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:20:41 -0400, Tom Sightler wrote: >> 2.4.5-ac9 > >> o Fix xircom_cb problems with some cisco kit (Ion Badulescu) > > I'm not sure what this is supposed to fix, but it makes my Xircom > RBEM56G-100 almost useless on my network at the office. Actually, I can't > quite blame just this patch, it only makes the problem worse, the driver > from 2.4.5-ac3 worked, but with 1 second ping times, the new driver barely > works at all, it seems to think the link is not there, at least not enough > to pull an IP address. The patch does only one thing: it instructs the card not to negotiate full-duplex modes, because (for undocumented and yet unexplained reasons) full-duplex modes don't work well on this card. If you had problems before, then their cause is most likely elsewhere. 1-second ping time is definitely wrong. > The last driver that worked moderately well for me was the one from > 2.4.4-ac11, it still had a few issues, mostly when resuming, but everything > worked at home on my 10Mb hub, and at the office on my 10/100Mb FD Cisco > 6509. I must admist that I haven't tested every version in between. The thing is, I don't really see any significant differences between the 2.4.4-ac11 driver and the 2.4.5-ac9 driver. I see lots of clean-ups, some power management stuff, and the half-duplex stuff. None of them should affect the core functionality directly.. Please do me a favor: comment out the call to set_half_duplex() (in xircom_up), recompile and see if it makes a difference. > One other note, the version in 2.4.4-ac11 is listed as 1.33 while the > version in 2.4.5-ac9 is 1.11, why did we go backwards? Were there > significant problems with the newer version? The 1.33 sure seems to work > better for me. The CVS version is almost irrelevant, I guess Arjan simply rebuild his repository. Ion -- It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.