From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 30 17:12:50 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A499F10656E3 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:12:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vx0-f182.google.com (mail-vx0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF6C8FC29 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:12:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vxc34 with SMTP id 34so1451110vxc.13 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:12:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=XpUEaOUJCDYXjwVFruPBv7V7PE0aZrrsFbmdGcd/oBM=; b=cKhOsGpUD2T552kFW9wT5HkJ5X18m8wOuki2VAU4dLLyUmLaKb3nkHgdAIPnB5S6/n tCA1fj+5O8Ai/w9OpM+Wn/gCA0Rbepzh9E0wG3cXxJEUgQqFC6Z0e90eGeC/uDaFZOE4 XBvFrtihD+S/hRPkhW0MWyn5t2a3fQYwYBMso= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=JJjUoDks32pG8yvM0mTQJnkMkhcbm2Dj2UQxE3IwgyDhytOeAJ16mS1w4JMFr1Cbay qRExA7CwpjRAhJ2GLSKMInQegeYUT8wdSvZ54Zj/UCwecEJl+ZgUpBcmmBDAQ+iL6bNh 4PSXxibnAquxlTxglApQGLKY456mAuv3bG3QI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.93.177 with SMTP id cv17mr2018084vdb.133.1301505169429; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.167.6 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:12:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4D923931.2070606@zonov.org> <4D92BB71.5000900@FreeBSD.org> <4D935DF6.90906@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:12:49 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jack Vogel To: Arnaud Lacombe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Doug Barton Subject: Re: igb(4) won't start with "igb0: Could not setup receive structures" X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:12:50 -0000 On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 3/30/2011 7:19 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > > > >> The only things I've been able to get from Jack is "We, at Intel, test > >> em(4) at 256k nmbclusters. We do not have problem. If you have > >> problem, raise nmbcluster.". 256k nmbcluster in my environment is not > >> acceptable. > >> > >>> Meanwhile, there are times where memory IS a constraint, and there are > >>> some > >>> things you can't do without more of it. > >>> > >> yes, but the driver should not need a manual reset between the time > >> resource are (heavily) scarce and the time it became available again. > > > > If you're facing that situation then obviously your system is constrained > by > > hardware. > No. We are taking about exceptional recoverable situation not handled > by the software, it should not bring the complete system down. If > you're swapping code has defect, you do not tell one to buy more RAM > not to trigger the defective code, you fix the code. The situation is > similar here. > > The code that got put in the driver has a response to this "unrecoverable situation", you've flamed me and the code, but you've not demonstrated it does not work. Both Beezar and myself have tried to have a civil discussion over the matter and you just have gotten rude. As demonstrated in this email thread. I don't know about you, but I have feelings, and you've been insensitive to them. So quote chapters and verses all you like, I'm DONE with this. Jack