From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:52961 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753859Ab1CBRem (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:34:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:34:38 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Michal Simek Cc: Chuck Lever , Trond Myklebust , Neil Brown , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NFS problem on Microblaze LE Message-ID: <20110302173438.GC29136@fieldses.org> References: <4D6E4052.7050201@monstr.eu> <20110302154900.GA29136@fieldses.org> <4D6E6C49.90309@monstr.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4D6E6C49.90309@monstr.eu> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 05:11:53PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 02:04:18PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>I am getting some troubles to get nfs work on new Microblaze > >>little-endian platform and I would like to ask you for some > >>recommendations how to debug it. > >> > >>First of all I need to write that Microblaze big-endian platforms have no problem. > >>The problem only happen if I use mount without -o nolock option > >>(mount -t nfs 192.168.0.101:/tftpboot/nfs /mnt) > >>If I use -o nolock option I have no problem to use nfs. > >> > >>I use xilinx emaclite and axi emac(it is not in the mainline now) > >>driver and I have no problem to use dhcp, ftp, http, telnet and > >>other internet protocols. > >> > >>I compared debug logs on big and little endian platform(rootfs has > >>the same setting) I found that little-endian got packet which is > >>shorter than on big endian which I have added to the log below. > >>The second thing, which I think is connected to the previous point, > >>is that I am getting BADCRED in rpc_verify_headers. > >> > >>Is there any option/macro/recommended debug technique how to see > >>packets? I need to get some clue how to see packet and then how they > >>are passed to rpc_verify_header function. > > > >A good first step would be to look at the network traffic with > >wireshark. > > Yes, I am looking at it all the time but I can't see anything weird. > Look at attachment. 192.168.0.101 - host, 192.168.0.103 target. > > There are two NULL calls and two reply calls. Yes, looks normal. I wonder why everything exept portmap is using udp, but your debugging traces refer to tcp? Oh, wait, it's talking about portmap map/unmap calls: could try try running wireshark on the loopback interface? (run with -ilo). --b. > There should different packet sent from > target to host.