From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 9 18:09:26 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7775516A417 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 18:09:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7CBE13C448 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 18:09:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so1330715nfb for ; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:09:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=NNeor4woAuyAaY2NEqn//m/g3bXjud8GQhujiwC6Cos=; b=SlM3KMu2RcFPT/3K+qK9DV+1LEW80GDZL6ylKshHRbki6tOM97epPR/nnrTbc3oVyw0g5SzAj6nzTeb4leohBQUQkJMfry5KQHEOI8HxWY4PAuw6xK+SxnVjsHbJYWuJy3em69tBKXBfk6J6oemW6qCubr/mIz75WwXSIoekpj8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=LW8f0/CWSZjVlJ5pKIvUija4lDSYw3WlRxcHlSrlRnn5ykplla3wDANgVmLF0fEOY5CPeqnHtl7KVeTNrEhD8LEgH97IVxS6FZkrLMjZh8+JrXf+t7sAk6KcCliqGyXfeyLZFGPSzrhQPMfMvAjUylUBwz3T+Ye3gmGvZ2bpjDo= Received: by 10.86.25.17 with SMTP id 17mr6217911fgy.1191953363824; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.100.19 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2a41acea0710091109o79ebf0d1q988449565f8e345d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:09:23 -0700 From: "Jack Vogel" To: "Mike Tancsa" In-Reply-To: <200710091649.l99Gnfk4048093@lava.sentex.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <2a41acea0710051328hdc0e49fr829b5ea35c95a413@mail.gmail.com> <200710082009.l98K9mCs042466@lava.sentex.ca> <2a41acea0710081336n11a36303ta70efc94c6f2d236@mail.gmail.com> <200710082111.l98LBGRa042719@lava.sentex.ca> <2a41acea0710081736r1b2c3c48k50d8ebd063dc3fc5@mail.gmail.com> <200710090038.l990cqsv043565@lava.sentex.ca> <2a41acea0710082137v4792b7cdwd5ebf8619666cf55@mail.gmail.com> <200710091649.l99Gnfk4048093@lava.sentex.ca> Cc: FreeBSD Stable List Subject: Re: Heads UP - MFC for em coming shortly X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:09:26 -0000 On 10/9/07, Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 12:37 AM 10/9/2007, Jack Vogel wrote: > > > Thanks, > > > I did find this reference > > > http://www.higherorder.com.au/2007/6/25/intel_82573_patch > > > > > > Is there a way from FreeBSD to tell remotely if its needed ? > > > >Well, there would be a way, reading the MANC register and > >seeing if the suspect bit is present, but am not sure if there > >is some important point at which the thing gets misprogrammed, > >its just best to use the patcher, its harmless if its not needed. > > > >Sorry, I realize its a hassle to boot to that wonder DOS :) > > > OK, did some tests on local PM nics here at the office. On one nic > (same model as what is causing us problems in the field) we can run > the program over and over again, and it always exits with a zero > value. Is this normal ? On another NIC that we recently bought, it > exits with a 1 which supposedly says "not needed". How do we know > that the update has taken ? Is there any danger of it losing its > reprogramming ? In short, how do we verify it "worked" > > The version I am using is > > lava# ls -l dcgdis.exe > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 160029 Oct 4 2005 dcgdis.exe > lava# md5 dcgdis.exe > MD5 (dcgdis.exe) = a48d9e127c19528bd4a650e692b2f2be > lava# > > Is there a newer one ? There has only ever been one of these things, and its a binary wad to me just as to you, so I don't know why it returns success multple times, I guess it just checks the NIC type and does the write. People writing this are not Unix types, they are DOS tools programmers, should tell you something :) I was just talking to one of our Linux engineers and they actually export the ability to read and write the eeprom via ethtool, maybe I should look into adding something like a sysctl for that. Right now, just run it once, then test to see if the problem has disappeared. Jack