From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 21 15:30:06 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 DBA3B16A41F for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:30:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (nagual.pp.ru [194.87.13.69]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8FB43D6E for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:29:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (ache@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nagual.pp.ru (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6LFTlYV011711; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:29:47 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.pp.ru (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j6LFTkGb011709; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:29:46 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:29:46 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov To: "M. Warner Losh" Message-ID: <20050721152946.GA11578@nagual.pp.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov , "M. Warner Losh" , marcolz@stack.nl, wpaul@windriver.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20050721134816.GA8550@nagual.pp.ru> <20050721142445.GA77847@stack.nl> <20050721143443.GB10010@nagual.pp.ru> <20050721.091844.10574798.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050721.091844.10574798.imp@bsdimp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: marcolz@stack.nl, wpaul@windriver.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rl(4) is not ready for mpsafenet net enough? (silent reboots) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:30:07 -0000 On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:18:44AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > *DRIVER* concept, not a hardware one in this context). The problem > with REV C and earlier is that their performance sucks because the DMA > engine used in the cards was LAME. Realtec fixed this in newer > revisions of the chip, and the re driver is able to take advantage of > that (as well as support the newer gige chips). The problem is that it is on-board embedded chip I try to use. Looks like I need to buy some external card like "Intel PRO/100+ PCI" and turn this one off... The question remains: why rl(4) driver pretend to be mpsafenet itself? Other drivers with problems, like de(4), are GIANT-locked by default. -- http://ache.pp.ru/