On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 03:25:55PM +0200, John B?ckstrand wrote:
>
> [148475.651000] [ cut here ]
> [148475.651050] kernel BUG at net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:918!
Yes, as Andrew said, this bug should be fixed in the latest git tree.
So please test with that plus the debugging pa
John Bäckstrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Someone asked if I could try to trigger this assertion again, and I'm
> afraid I probably cannot, I didnt do anything special at the time. But
> I've got something even better for you all, got a BUG from something
> tcp-related. Mind you, I am t
Heikki Orsila wrote:
> There were big changes in tcp_output.c between rc1 and rc2, and the
> bug is triggered when using e1000 with rc2 or later. And because the
> bug does not happen on skge (new sk98 driver) it makes me guess it's a
> race condition of sorts.. I am surprised this bug wasn't no
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hang on a second, the original poster mentioned rc5. Is this really
> pristine rc5 with the one netpoll patch? If so then it can't be the
> patches we're talking about because they only went in days later.
I produced a similar panic on rc2 and later (which
David S. Miller wrote:
> I suspect this is a side effect of some changes Herbert Xu and
> myself did to fix some other bugs.
I think I crossed this bug independently today. I did some testing, and
got kernel panics when uploading files with ftp on a gigabit lan. The
error happens always at net/
Someone asked if I could try to trigger this assertion again, and I'm
afraid I probably cannot, I didnt do anything special at the time. But
I've got something even better for you all, got a BUG from something
tcp-related. Mind you, I am trying to find a possibly hardware-related
issue here, so
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 02:06:53PM +0200, John B?ckstrand wrote:
>
> Yes, I have no other patches in, so if it was not in -RC5, I was not
> running it.
OK having looked at it briefly I have a hunch that it may be the
fackets_out issue (when the effective MSS is reduced tcp_tso_acked
may increase
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:57:17 +1000
> Hang on a second, the original poster mentioned rc5. Is this really
> pristine rc5 with the one netpoll patch? If so then it can't be the
> patches we're talking about because they only went in days later.
This seems to
Hang on a second, the original poster mentioned rc5. Is this really
pristine rc5 with the one netpoll patch? If so then it can't be the
patches we're talking about because they only went in days later.
Yes, I have no other patches in, so if it was not in -RC5, I was not
running it.
---
John
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 12:24:35PM +1000, herbert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 09:32:08AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> >
> > It therefore may be desirable to keep Herbert's fix in there, but
> > back out my changes until they can be reimplemented correctly.
> >
> > Herbert?
>
> Sure. Let
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 09:32:08AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> It therefore may be desirable to keep Herbert's fix in there, but
> back out my changes until they can be reimplemented correctly.
>
> Herbert?
Sure. Let's back it out until a better solution is found.
--
Visit Openswan at ht
From: John Bäckstrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:53:11 +0200
> KERNEL: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed at
> net/ipv4/tcp_input.c (1476)
I suspect this is a side effect of some changes Herbert Xu and
myself did to fix some other bugs.
Herbert,
I get
KERNEL: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed at
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c (1476)
with 2.6.13-rc5, also with a small netpoll patch that shouldnt affect
these things. (Topic: "lockups with netconsole on e1000 on media
insertion").
I have a decent amount of dropped
13 matches
Mail list logo
