Re: Problem with 2.4.24 e1000 and keepalived

[Jonathan Lundell]

At 1:45am +0100 1/9/04, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>  > It's unfortunate that the two conditions are conflated by most net drivers.
>
> IMHO, saying "most net drivers" is unfair : tg3, tulip, 3c59x, starfire,
> realtek, sis900, dl2k, pcnet32, and IIRC sunhme are OK. eepro100 is nearly
> OK but has this annoying bug, and only older 10 Mbps drivers don't report
> their status, often because the chip itself doesn't know.

I'm sure you're right; I should have said most of the drivers that 
I'm using (including e100 &e1000).

My impression, though, is that there's a trend to use 
netif_carrier_ok() to check the link in newish drivers (of course, 
it's author-choice, not universal), and that the netif_carrier_ok() 
is generally implemented to be dependent on the interface being 
(logically) up.

It'd be nice if we could define link state reporting to be 
independent of logical up/down state, at least for drivers & devices 
capable of making the distinction.
--
/Jonathan Lundell.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html