On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:00:42 -0800 Jonathan Lundell <jlundell@lundell-bros.com> wrote: > At 1:45am +0100 1/9/04, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > It's unfortunate that the two conditions are conflated by most net > > > drivers. > > > >IMHO, saying "most net drivers" is unfair : tg3, tulip, 3c59x, starfire, > >realtek, sis900, dl2k, pcnet32, and IIRC sunhme are OK. eepro100 is nearly > >OK but has this annoying bug, and only older 10 Mbps drivers don't report > >their status, often because the chip itself doesn't know. > > I'm sure you're right; I should have said most of the drivers that > I'm using (including e100 &e1000). Can we find the cause for this obviously buggy behaviour inside the source? Where is the handling of physical up/down events different in tulip compared to e100(0) ? Regards, Stephan - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
