[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9F4C7D19E8361D4C94921B95BE08B81BA09039@zin33exm22.fsl.freescale.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:45:10 +0530
From: "Kumar Gopalpet-B05799" <B05799@...escale.com>
To: "Michael Guntsche" <mike@...loops.com>
Cc: "netdev" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [BUG] 2.6.33-rc1 gianfar error message
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Guntsche [mailto:mike@...loops.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:58 PM
>To: Kumar Gopalpet-B05799
>Cc: netdev
>Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.33-rc1 gianfar error message
>
>On 2009.12.22 19:10:00 , Michael Guntsche wrote:
>> Since you said that the first patch is not needed
>>
>> @@ -2470,10 +2470,11 @@ static int gfar_process_frame(struct
>net_device
>> fcb = (struct rxfcb *)skb->data;
>>
>> /* Remove the FCB from the skb */
>> - skb_set_queue_mapping(skb, fcb->rq);
>> /* Remove the padded bytes, if there are any */
>> - if (amount_pull)
>> + if (amount_pull) {
>> + skb_set_queue_mapping(skb, fcb->rq);
>> skb_pull(skb, amount_pull);
>> + }
>>
>> if (priv->rx_csum_enable)
>> gfar_rx_checksum(skb, fcb);
>>
>> I only applied the second one and tested again. Right after
>the reboot
>> I got an error so apparently this change IS required as well.
>
>I tested this now in the opposite direction and apparently
>ONLY this patch is needed. I commented out the second diff and
>did not get any errors so far. Sorry for not testing this
>before sending my previous mail.
>
Ok. Thanks !
>Kind regards,
>Michael
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists