On 12/03/16 17:12, Michael Howard wrote: > On 12/03/2016 16:42, Gordan Bobic wrote: >> On 12/03/16 16:31, Michael Howard wrote: >>> On my modified 4.5.0-rc6 I do see 4 nics but the fourth is bogus as >>> the hwaddr is nothing like and I can't physically test at the mo. I >>> don't think there is support yet for the second 10Gb nic. >> >> So mainline 4.5.0 works without needing extra patches? > Yes. I just build 4.4.5, and that works without any extra patches, too. Impressive. This is starting to get close to x86 as far as the lack of hoop jumping goes. >> What config did you use? The one from the CentOS kernel (with make >> oldconfig or similar)? > Yes, I started with the original config, accepting all defaults, then > made the changes I neeeded/wanted. Worked for me, too. > As I said earlier, I can't physically test my 10G ports at the mo and > the mac address of eth3 is wildly out. However, ethtool does report (the > same as eth2); > > # ethtool eth3 > Settings for eth3: > Supported ports: [ FIBRE ] > Supported link modes: 10000baseT/Full > Supported pause frame use: No > Supports auto-negotiation: No > Advertised link modes: 10000baseT/Full > Advertised pause frame use: No > Advertised auto-negotiation: No > Speed: 10000Mb/s > Duplex: Full > Port: FIBRE > PHYAD: 0 > Transceiver: internal > Auto-negotiation: off > Link detected: no > > so maybe it's just a mis reported mac address. I'm also seeing the extra NIC with 4.4.5, but as you also described, the reported MAC address is wrong. I wasn't intending to use the fibre ports anyway, though. Gordan