Re: kern/50150: wm(4) failure

[Kengo NAKAHARA <k-nakahara%iij.ad.jp@localhost>]

Hi,

On 2016/05/11 12:50, Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR kern/50150; it has been noted by GNATS.
> 
> From: Masanobu SAITOH <msaitoh%execsw.org@localhost>
> To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost, kern-bug-people%netbsd.org@localhost,
>  gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost,
>  Hauke Fath <hf%spg.tu-darmstadt.de@localhost>
> Cc: msaitoh%execsw.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: kern/50150: wm(4) failure
> Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 12:45:46 +0900
> 
>  Hi.
>  
>  On 2016/05/10 22:20, Hauke Fath wrote:
>  > The following reply was made to PR kern/50150; it has been noted by GNATS.
>  >
>  > From: Hauke Fath <hf%spg.tu-darmstadt.de@localhost>
>  > To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
>  > Cc: kern-bug-people%NetBSD.org@localhost, gnats-admin%NetBSD.org@localhost
>  > Subject: Re: kern/50150: wm(4) failure
>  > Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:18:50 +0200
>  >
>  >  On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:45:00 +0000 (UTC), Hauke Fath wrote:
>  >  > =09Since the router had to come back up as quick as possible, we
>  >  > =09did not take the time to check whether an 'ifconfig wm5 down ;
>  >  > =09ifconfig wm5 up' could have brought the NIC back in line.
>  >
>  >  ... happened again during nightly backup traffic, and an 'ifconfig wm5=20
>  >  down ; ifconfig wm5 up' did not fix it.
>  >
>  >  Any recent relevant changes to wm(4) that I could give a spin?
>  
>    Some people reported the same problem and the problem have not solved
>  yet I think :-(

I think if_wm.c:r1.397 might fix this problem. If you have time, Could
you try if_wm.c:r1.397 or if_wm.c:r1.398 ?


Thanks,

-- 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Internet Initiative Japan Inc.

Device Engineering Section,
IoT Platform Development Department,
Network Division,
Technology Unit

Kengo NAKAHARA <k-nakahara%iij.ad.jp@localhost>