igb(4) won't start with "igb0: Could not setup receive structures"

Jack Vogel jfvogel at gmail.com
Wed Mar 30 17:12:50 UTC 2011

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On 3/30/2011 7:19 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Doug Barton<dougb at freebsd.org>  wrote:
> >
> >> The only things I've been able to get from Jack is "We, at Intel, test
> >> em(4) at 256k nmbclusters. We do not have problem. If you have
> >> problem, raise nmbcluster.". 256k nmbcluster in my environment is not
> >> acceptable.
> >>
> >>> Meanwhile, there are times where memory IS a constraint, and there are
> >>> some
> >>> things you can't do without more of it.
> >>>
> >> yes, but the driver should not need a manual reset between the time
> >> resource are (heavily) scarce and the time it became available again.
> >
> > If you're facing that situation then obviously your system is constrained
> by
> > hardware.
> No. We are taking about exceptional recoverable situation not handled
> by the software, it should not bring the complete system down. If
> you're swapping code has defect, you do not tell one to buy more RAM
> not to trigger the defective code, you fix the code. The situation is
> similar here.
The code that got put in the driver has a response to this "unrecoverable
situation", you've flamed me and the code, but you've not demonstrated it
does not work.

Both Beezar and myself have tried to have a civil discussion over the matter
and you just have gotten rude. As demonstrated in this email thread. I don't
know about you, but I have feelings, and you've been insensitive to them.
So quote chapters and verses all you like, I'm DONE with this.


More information about the freebsd-net mailing list