On 08/25/15 12:10, Joel Dahl wrote: >> > Seems to work. However, I cannot reproduce the user panic in the first >> > place. What's the scenario that seems to work here? NFS seems happy >> > with/without the patch so I'm not confident in anything we are doing her >> > e. > I see several patches here. Which one should I be using? This: Index: sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c =================================================================== --- sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c (revision 287087) +++ sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c (working copy) _at__at_ -3044,7 +3044,7 _at__at_ em_setup_interface(device_t dev, struct adapter *a if_setioctlfn(ifp, em_ioctl); if_setgetcounterfn(ifp, em_get_counter); /* TSO parameters */ - ifp->if_hw_tsomax = EM_TSO_SIZE; + ifp->if_hw_tsomax = IP_MAXPACKET; ifp->if_hw_tsomaxsegcount = EM_MAX_SCATTER; ifp->if_hw_tsomaxsegsize = EM_TSO_SEG_SIZE;Received on Tue Aug 25 2015 - 17:55:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:59 UTC