linux-kernel - RE: e1000 issue on DQ965GF board (was 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BD524EA7912ED5469DFD0BAEF6BC752F01D46D71@orsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 May 2007 08:56:02 -0700
From:	"Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>
To:	"Kok, Auke-jan H" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	"Michel Lespinasse" <walken@....org>
Cc:	"Kok, Auke-jan H" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	"Chuck Ebbert" <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Dave Jones" <davej@...hat.com>,
	"cramerj" <cramerj@...el.com>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: RE: e1000 issue on DQ965GF board (was 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel)

Yes, this was discovered through code inspection last week and I've
already made a fix (as I mentioned to Auke off-thread).  It should be
submitted upstream shortly.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kok, Auke [mailto:auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:37 AM
To: Michel Lespinasse
Cc: Kok, Auke-jan H; Chuck Ebbert; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Dave
Jones; cramerj; Ronciak, John; Brandeburg, Jesse; Kirsher, Jeffrey T;
Allan, Bruce W
Subject: Re: e1000 issue on DQ965GF board (was 24 lost ticks with
2.6.20.10 kernel)

[Adding Bruce to the Cc, reply below]

Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:14:52AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>> I just checked and the fix I was referring to earlier didn't make it
into 
>> 2.6.21-final. You can get 2.6.21-git1 from kernel.org which has the
fix. See
>>
>>
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/patch-2.6.21-git1.
log
> 
> Good. So I tried that patch (well, actually only the change visible at
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/6/268). I patched it into a 2.6.20.11
kernel,
> using the same config file as previously. The good news is that this
fixes
> my issue: there are no lost ticks anymore, and the link does negotiate
a
> gigabit connection. This is a great improvement for me :)
> 
> I still seem to hit an issue if using the ethtool command, though.
> when using 'ethtool -s eth0 autoneg on', the link comes up at gigabit
speed,
> but a couple seconds later is comes down again, and then up at 100
megabits:
> 
> e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex
> e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Down
> e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex
> e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO
> 
> The same thing happens if I use ifdown eth0; ifup eth0 too. Once
again,
> I only observe this on my DQ965GF motherboard, the DG965RY board is
fine
> (stays at gigabit speed when I issue these commands).
> 
> Is this something you could easily reproduce at Intel or would you
want me
> to look into that issue on my system ?

I think we have confirmed this issue and I'll work with Bruce on seeing
where 
the fix went. I might give you another patch to try.

Auke
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/