> 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" SilbersackReceived on Mon Jan 05 2004 - 05:58:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:36 UTC