From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 23 16:13:21 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5A01737B401; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from volatile.chemikals.org (cae88-48-006.sc.rr.com [24.88.48.6])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id AB8D743F3F; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org)
Received: from localhost (morganw@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	h3NNDIcx008762;	Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Wesley Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org>
To: Bill Paul <wpaul@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030423211722.D81BF37B401@hub.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20030423191015.J5477@volatile.chemikals.org>
References: <20030423211722.D81BF37B401@hub.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
cc: Don Lewis <truckman@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: fxp/82550 bug (was Re: IP fragmentation disagreement between
 current and stable)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:13:21 -0000

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Bill Paul wrote:

> Or a bug in the current rev of the fxp chip.
>
> For the record, it helps to actually identify the chip you have,
> either by looking at the output of pciconf -l, or by looking at the
> chip and making a note of the part number. (I can understand why
> some people don't bother to do this: Intel uses a special silkscreening
> process that makes their part numbers nearly invisible.)

There are a lot of people out there with intel cards. How about ...
Make a patch to print some debug info, and a little utility to tickle the
bug. We can report back our chipset versions and build some data on this
problem rather.


-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!