Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:58:28 -0500 (EST) From: <silby@silby.com> To: <truckman@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ryans@gamersimpact.com Subject: Re: 5.2-RC oerrs and collisions on dc0 Message-ID: <53342.158.6.15.27.1073314708.squirrel@webmail.pair.com> In-Reply-To: <200401042151.i04Lp27E009737@gw.catspoiler.org> References: <200401041115.29188.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> <200401042151.i04Lp27E009737@gw.catspoiler.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I just took a closer look at the busdma diff, and this change to
> dc_txeof() looks very suspicious:
>
> - if (!(cur_tx->dc_ctl & DC_TXCTL_LASTFRAG) ||
> + if (!(cur_tx->dc_ctl & DC_TXCTL_FIRSTFRAG) ||
> cur_tx->dc_ctl & DC_TXCTL_SETUP) {
I'm current checking e-mail via a webmail interface and I haven't had time
to check over your later posts, but I thought I'd note that the change
above _is_ busdma related; one subtle change in the busdma code was that
the mbuf is now linked to the first fragment in the chain, whereas before
it was linked to the last fragment. So, the change does make sense on the
surface, although I wouldn't be surprised if it broke something subtle.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53342.158.6.15.27.1073314708.squirrel>