[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1300453519.2888.118.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:05:19 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jdb@...x.dk>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: LRO disable warnings on kernel 2.6.38
Le vendredi 18 mars 2011 à 12:12 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer a écrit :
> Hi
>
> I'm seeing the LRO disable warnings using kernel 2.6.38:
>
> [ 8.664759] NET: Registered protocol family 10
> [ 8.838148] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth71: link is not ready
> [ 8.872639] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 8.872645] WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1363 dev_disable_lro+0x7b/0x80()
> [ 8.872647] Hardware name: ProLiant DL370 G6
> [ 8.872648] Modules linked in: ipv6 nf_conntrack ip_tables loop i7core_edac edac_core ipmi_si ipmi_msghandler joydev hpilo pcspkr sg hpsa igb ata_piix netxen_nic dca [last unloaded: scsi_wait_scan]
> [ 8.872660] Pid: 2221, comm: sysctl Not tainted 2.6.38-comx04 #2
> [ 8.872662] Call Trace:
> [ 8.872671] [<ffffffff81056e1f>] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
> [ 8.872675] [<ffffffff81056e7a>] ? warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
> [ 8.872680] [<ffffffff8140c0ab>] ? dev_disable_lro+0x7b/0x80
> [ 8.872686] [<ffffffff81474f27>] ? devinet_sysctl_forward+0x147/0x180
> [ 8.872691] [<ffffffff811872f7>] ? proc_sys_call_handler+0x97/0xd0
> [ 8.872700] [<ffffffff81187344>] ? proc_sys_write+0x14/0x20
> [ 8.872704] [<ffffffff81124148>] ? vfs_write+0xc8/0x180
> [ 8.872707] [<ffffffff81124301>] ? sys_write+0x51/0x90
> [ 8.872712] [<ffffffff8100b8c2>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [ 8.872714] ---[ end trace 6245283cb8d484cc ]---
>
> The strange part is that I didn't see this warning on my testlab and
> pre-prod servers. The warning is from the first production server,
> which got kernel 2.6.38 deployed this morning.
>
> The NIC driver is igb.
>
> The only difference in hardware between the production and
> pre-production server (which didn't show the warning), is the
> prod-server have an extra dual-port original Intel NIC, dev-named
> "eth71". And its just after the init of eth71, the warning occurs.
>
> We usually use a 6 port NIC from Hotlava, which is based on the same
> chip 82576 and also uses the same igb driver.
>
> Intel orig NIC eth71
> albpd4:~# ethtool -i eth71
> driver: igb
> version: 2.1.0-k2
> firmware-version: 1.2-1
> bus-info: 0000:21:00.0
>
> Hotlava Intel chip based NIC eth51:
> albpd4:~# ethtool -i eth51
> driver: igb
> version: 2.1.0-k2
> firmware-version: 1.2-1
> bus-info: 0000:1d:00.1
>
> I don't understand why I don't see the warning on my pre-prod server,
> which only have the Hotlava NIC?!?
>
Hmm, WARN_ON() message is not very nice in this case I'm afraid, we dont
even know offender
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 0b88eba..571ab70 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ void dev_disable_lro(struct net_device *dev)
dev->ethtool_ops->set_flags(dev, flags);
}
}
- WARN_ON(dev->features & NETIF_F_LRO);
+ if (dev->features & NETIF_F_LRO)
+ netdev_err(dev, "Could not disable LRO\n");
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(dev_disable_lro);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists