From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Apr 18 16:27:14 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3231637B401; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from castle.org (castle.org [207.178.4.54])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 98E6243FD7; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nomad@castle.org)
Received: from castle.org (localhost.castle.org [127.0.0.1])
	by castle.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3INRDWJ051220;
	Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nomad@castle.org)
Message-Id: <200304182327.h3INRDWJ051220@castle.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 19 Apr 2003 01:02:34 +0200.             
 <20030418230234.GG21011@elvis.mu.org>
X-uri: <http://www.castle.org/nomad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:27:13 -0700
From: Lee Damon <nomad@castle.org>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: fxp0 problems - 5.0-CURRENT 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:27:14 -0000

> I believe the problems you're having are not due to fxp(4) changes but
> rather due to some recent changes in the PCI subsystem.  The changes
> that have been done since revision 1.162 are rather conservative
> changes.  It would thus be helpful if you could now try with revision
> 1.162 of if_fxp.c, and the rest of the kernel sources unchanged.  If it
> still doesn't work with 1.162 while your older kernel works with the
> same revision, it will show clearly that the problem lies elsewhere.

The symptoms match your theory.

I CVSup'd the latest sources about 30 minutes ago, put the 1.162 version
of if_fxp.c into place and built a kernel.  After rebooting with the
new kernel fxp0 was unable to pass packets.

For those joining us late... this is on an IBM T30 portable running
5.0-CURRENT.

nomad
 -----------                       - Lee "nomad" Damon -          \
play: nomad@castle.org    or castle!nomad                          \
work: nomad@ee.washington.edu                                       \
                                 				    /\
Seneschal, Castle PAUS.                                            /  \
                "Celebrate Diversity"                             /    \