Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 13:28:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: tlambert@primenet.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic in fxp driver Message-ID: <200105031828.f43ISSi06097@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <local.mail.freebsd-current/200105031802.LAA28955@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <local.mail.freebsd-current/200105031802.LAA28955@usr05.primenet.com> you write:
>] I would be quite interested in knowing just how you manage
>] to accomplish that, given that all the transmit control buffers
>] are arranged in a circular linked list:
>]
>] fxp_init(void *xsc)
>] {
>] ...
>] for (i = 0; i < FXP_NTXCB; i++) {
>] ...
>] txp[i].next = &txp[(i + 1) & FXP_TXCB_MASK];
>] }
>]
>]
>] I would suggest actually examining the rest of the code to see
>] how it works before making erroneous proclamations based on the
>] myopic examination of a single statement.
>
>I would suggest a less than myopic examination of the subject
>line.
I'm quite aware of the subject line; but you're changing the
subject here. Any panic has nothing to do with the "next" pointer
being NULL, as you stated in the previous email, since this is
not possible, assuming correct operation of the code.
>In particular, I saw a repeatable panic under extremely heavy
>load.
I'm sorry, my MTA must have dropped your bug report, as it appears
to be missing. Can you please resend? In particular, a stack
backtrace and preferably a crashdump, and leave off any wild
hypothesis of where the bugs are, unless you have supporting evidence.
>Please consider the case where there are two mbuf chains being
>transmitted, which look like this:
Um. "Not Possible".
--
Jonathan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105031828.f43ISSi06097>