From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 21:13:17 -0400 From: jmk@plan9.att.com jmk@plan9.att.com Subject: ether509.c.diff problem Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1aef5b4c-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Message-ID: <19950823011317.pPBRpd_Z5rqqzoZJ9OAW-XQHoaBWJ7RnxcFwkltEa4c@z> It looks like the diff was completely bogus to me. I've replaced it with just a copy of the complete interrupt routine. A diff on the current source would be too much, there's code for the 3C590 which would mean pulling in the PCI support file, etc. ------ original message follows ------ >>From cse.psu.edu!9fans-outgoing-owner Tue Aug 22 18:26:46 EDT 1995 Received: by colossus.cse.psu.edu id <45512>; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 18:11:13 -0400 Received: from galapagos.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.2.12]) by colossus.cse.psu.edu with SMTP id <45610>; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 17:59:27 -0400 Received: by galapagos.cse.psu.edu id <12728>; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 17:50:01 -0400 From: Scott Schwartz To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: ether509.c.diff problem Message-Id: <95Aug22.175001edt.12728@galapagos.cse.psu.edu> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 17:49:57 -0400 Sender: owner-9fans@cse.psu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Is the diff for ether509.c correct? It looks like some of the changes there have already been applied to the code on the cdrom. Can we get a clean diff from cdrom to current?