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, 5 Sep 2001 16:27:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:26:52 -0400 Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com ([207.69.200.110]:30229 "EHLO smtp6.mindspring.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:26:35 -0400 From: volodya@mindspring.com Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:28:39 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: volodya@mindspring.com To: Jeremiah Johnson cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Re[4]: 2.4.9 UDP broke? In-Reply-To: <111202114514.20010904191953@netcis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Jeremiah Johnson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: MD5 > > Hello volodya, > > I found the answer to the problem today. It has to do with a bug in > one of these options: > > CONFIG_TULIP_MWI > CONFIG_TULIP_MMIO > You are absolutely correct - once I enabled both of these it works great. My guess is that whoever tested the patches was concentrated on the case when options were enabled. Vladimir Dergachev > Since the system is a older dual p100 I didn't really want to sit > through the 2 hours of compilation to "test" which one it is. I'm > willing to bet its CONFIG_TULIP_MWI though since its still marked as > experimental. With both of these options disabled 2.4.9 works fine on > that system though as it does on my other boxes. Whoever maintains > the code for those two config options might want to do some testing. > I can provide more information about the system if needed. > > Sunday, September 02, 2001, 7:25:44 PM, you wrote: > > vmc> I had a very similar experience. In my case it turned out that for some > vmc> reason no UDP packets above 5524 would not come through (try pinging with > vmc> larger than default packet sizes). The solution was to restrict NFS to > vmc> 5000 (actually 4096) size packets. I have not been able to figure out the > vmc> cause of this yet. (and yes, tcpdump was able to see them fine). > > vmc> Vladimir Dergachev > > > - -- > Best regards, > Jeremiah mailto:miah@netcis.com > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6 > > iQEVAwUAO5WLyZHTj7BlqKb5AQFiIQf8DG8rppS8oNKQvmQts2rFQzx0MVizZZv/ > p12tm+bcToP8jg6OKL0hzkeL59k3RgJpbjSleHl6VHgGzZ4VfZuvtE7gwA0e/Ch8 > MQck+diQkDY14qM+qxdIhwjuSyt+qDTlOPge/MZKNvtGckYkQ9qKVHiWbKWuxlYS > U4N8knpXHUZ9fM+hPPqi/0yNfwx6g7QbtLycYJzP0GIDSzP4y/P30HMkSJ9EUzP1 > MQCho4dj2K2WvMyrNVAO70Nj90j1ioU7vJE2LMooKrZmWBpBSMX6MMKr//lJP73H > RTQLNZmRGbBtblq4QiXai6OpEYkaaE84iutfs9JbssOJ+S2cxNDM1g== > =XNHF > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >