Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:10:59 -0800 From: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> To: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, zenker@punkt.de Subject: Re: New em driver - still watchdog timeouts Message-ID: <20061102181059.GA23733@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <2a41acea0611020943p9c91b6fv1e61cd9ea0082b77@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061102094332.GA15810@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> <2a41acea0611020943p9c91b6fv1e61cd9ea0082b77@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 09:43:34AM -0800, Jack Vogel wrote: > Yes, I know this is still happening. I also have pretty good data now > that its a bogus problem, meaning due to scheduling issues the > watchdog does not get reset even though the system is just fine > as far as transmit descriptors is concerned. I have a patch that > detects this and keeps the watchdog from erroneously resetting > you, it has been running on my test system for days now without > problems. I don't understand this explanation of the problem. Here's how I read this paragraph: * It's a "bogus problem" (which means there's not a problem) * ...due to "scheduling issues" (which means there IS a problem) * The watchdog does NOT get reset * ...but there's a patch (to fix the "bogus problem"? or what?) * ...which keeps the watchdog from resetting (but you just said...) Maybe you were in a hurry, I don't know. Either way, the paragraph doesn't make sense. I call for clarification! ;-) -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061102181059.GA23733>