[NCLUG] Problem building kernel with Nvidia nic

[Michael Crosiar]

Again,

--- Michael Crosiar <crosiarcm at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello again,
> 
> Looks like I gave some bad info in the last post -
> been up 24hr straight...
> 
> Here is a copy of the lsmod for the new kernel:
> 
> Module                  Size  Used by    Tainted: P
> tun                     3552   3  (autoclean)
> ipt_TOS                 1048  12  (autoclean)
> ipt_MASQUERADE          1656   1  (autoclean)
> ipt_REDIRECT             856   2  (autoclean)
> ipt_REJECT              3992   4  (autoclean)
> ipt_pkttype              504   4  (autoclean)
> ipt_LOG                 3448   6  (autoclean)
> ipt_state                568  32  (autoclean)
> ipt_multiport            728   0  (autoclean)
> ipt_conntrack           1016   0  (autoclean)
> iptable_mangle          2200   1  (autoclean)
> ip_nat_irc              2256   0  (unused)
> ip_nat_tftp             1712   0  (unused)
> ip_nat_ftp              2896   0  (unused)
> iptable_nat            17358   4  [ipt_MASQUERADE
> ipt_REDIRECT ip_nat_irc ip_nat_tftp ip_nat_ftp]
> ip_conntrack_irc        2832   1
> ip_conntrack_tftp       1680   1
> ip_conntrack_ftp        3824   1
> ip_conntrack           19524   3  [ipt_MASQUERADE
> ipt_REDIRECT ipt_state ipt_conntrack ip_nat_irc
> ip_nat_tftp ip_nat_ftp iptable_nat ip_conntrack_irc
> ip_conntrack_tftp ip_conntrack_ftp]
> iptable_filter          1804   1
> ip_tables              11968  14  [ipt_TOS
> ipt_MASQUERADE ipt_REDIRECT ipt_REJECT ipt_pkttype
> ipt_LOG ipt_state ipt_multiport ipt_conntrack
> iptable_mangle iptable_nat iptable_filter]
> nvnet                  57312   0  (unused)
> i810_audio             23836   0  (unused)
> 8139too                14952   1
> rtc                     6376   0  (autoclean)
> 
> So is nvnet the binary nvidia driver? If so, why is
> it
> unused?
> 
> Here is the line I tried in modules.conf:
> 
> alias eth0 nvnet
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> It looks to me like forcedeth is not in the new
> kernel
> - where would I find that patch?
> 
> Thank's again,
> 
> Michael C.
>