On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Kumba wrote:
> Pete Popov wrote:
> > Looks like the latest udelay in 2.4 is borked. Anyway else notice that
> > problem? I did a 10 sec test: mdelay works, udelay is broken, at least
> > for the CPU and toolchain I'm using.
>
> What's one way of testing this brokeness? I've been trying to find some
> explanation for a bug of some sort in a cobalt RaQ2 in which the tulip
> driver (eth0) just stops dead after several minutes of use. One of the
> notable features of the tulip driver patch needed to work on the RaQ2
> adds a "udelay(1000)" into the tulip source. Without it, the eth0 on
> the RaQ2 is dead, so I wonder if these are related.
>
> If they are related, then this behavior has been slowly getting worse it
> seems, as eth0 on the RaQ2 apparently has had smaller and smaller
> amounts of time needed before the interface died. 2.4.18, it took most
> of a day, by 2.4.21, it happens within seconds.
Any kernel messages (e.g. transmit timed out) from the tulip driver when it
dies?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
