From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 7 08:05:16 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E014A106566C; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:05:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danger@FreeBSD.org) Received: from virtual.micronet.sk (smtp.micronet.sk [84.16.32.237]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0E18FC17; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:05:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danger@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtual.micronet.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDB810E5C5; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:33:38 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at virtual.micronet.sk Received: from virtual.micronet.sk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (virtual.micronet.sk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id et54pMad3oRI; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:33:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from DANGER-PC (danger.mcrn.sk [84.16.37.254]) by virtual.micronet.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C0C10E51E; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:33:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:34:41 +0100 From: Daniel Gerzo X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.99.3) Professional Organization: The FreeBSD Project X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <10310500019.20080307083441@rulez.sk> To: Pyun YongHyeon In-Reply-To: <20080307043815.GA92464@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <20080306200532.GA84961@cvsup.sk.freebsd.org> <20080307043815.GA92464@cdnetworks.co.kr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Daniel Gerzo , current@FreeBSD.org, yongari@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re[2]: re(4) problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Gerzo List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:05:17 -0000 Hello Pyun, Friday, March 7, 2008, 5:38:15 AM, you wrote: > Checking Linux/NetBSD sources show interesting code which explictly > enables IP checksum offload whenever TCP/UDP checksum offload is > required(That's not documented in datasheet). I tried it on my box > it seems to work but I need more feedback before committing it. > Attached patch includes that change. > Your report also indicates another possible bug but it's not clear > to me. ENOBUFS from ping may indicate that re(4) got lost ink or > re(4) thinks it lost the established link. When it happens did you > ever check the output of ifconfig to see the media status of re(4)? as I have included in my report, that media status reports that it's active. > I guess your issue is not related with bus_dma fixes but improper > handling of link state. Try attached patch and let me know how it > goes. I have recompiled my kernel with the attached patch and I will report if it's of any help. BTW, it applied cleanly, but with some offsets, hope it's not problem. -- Best regards, Daniel mailto:danger@FreeBSD.org