From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mahan@mahan.org>
Received: from ns.mahan.org (unknown [67.116.10.138])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61289232
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:02:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.252.223.23] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0)
 by ns.mahan.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5HC2nEU042773;
 Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:02:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mahan@mahan.org)
References: <51BAA6BB.20107@mahan.org>
 <20130614075736.5f0e4752@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
 <201306171133.41185.thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <201306171133.41185.thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9D72C67E-7E0B-4EE9-AD14-C9A4B90F63B5@mahan.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B329)
From: Patrick Mahan <mahan@mahan.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:02:48 -0700
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] link_status_interrupt fails
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:02:45 -0000

Not yet, I am on vacation for the next two weeks and the equipment has been r=
eturned. I was going to try it with my 82576 in my Dell T110 when I get back=
.=20

Sorry,

Patrick

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 17, 2013, at 2:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wro=
te:

> 14/06/2013 16:57, Stephen Hemminger :
>> Patrick Mahan <mahan@mahan.org> wrote:
>>> I am seeing the following issue with the link_status example.  This
>>> requires a reboot on my testbox.
>>=20
>> This is an example of why I posted the RFC patch to igb_uio to not use
>> pci_lock. -
>> Subject: igb_uio: rework interrupt usin intx_mask
>=20
> Patrick,
>=20
> Do you confirm that Stephen's patch is solving your problem ?
>=20
> --=20
> Thomas