From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arno@natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard) Subject: Re: E1000E/82567LM-3: link reported up too soon Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 23:28:57 +0200 Message-ID: <87aancqf3a.fsf@small.ssi.corp> References: <878w2wnsyd.fsf@small.ssi.corp> <20100920.125447.220082714.davem@davemloft.net> <87y6awjhxv.fsf@small.ssi.corp> <20100920.131839.173838219.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: brian.haley@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from copper.chdir.org ([88.191.97.87]:36083 "EHLO copper.chdir.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755051Ab0ITV2I (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:28:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100920.131839.173838219.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, David Miller writes: > From: arno@natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard) > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:09:16 +0200 > >> The packets sent are an IPv6 Router Solicitation (to get IPv6 subnet >> prefixes from the router) and a DHCP Request (to get an IPv4 address >> from the DHCP server). >> >> The former is sent from the unspecified address (::) and the latter from >> 0.0.0.0. The former is sent by UMIP Mobile IPv6 daemon. The second by my >> DHCP client. They both use netlink to do that as soon as the link is up. >> Both are for address configuration ... > > So do both DHCP request and the IPV6 RS get dropped, or just the IPV6 RS? I added printk() to see where/if those first packets get dropped in e1000e code. I followed those first packets to e1000_xmit_frame() and don't see anything obvious happening there, i.e. they are passed to the device as expected. If I find some time tomorrow, I will try and take a look at e1000_watchdog_task() and other functions that may perform asynchronous tasks. Cheers, a+