From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757148AbZEOHUR (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 03:20:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753625AbZEOHUE (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 03:20:04 -0400 Received: from night.yars.free.net ([193.233.48.54]:44106 "EHLO night.yars.free.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753428AbZEOHUB (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 03:20:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:19:46 +0400 From: "Alexander V. Lukyanov" To: Jarek Poplawski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.29.1: unregister_netdevice problem Message-ID: <20090515071946.GA15669@night.netis.ru> References: <20090422055735.GA4334@night.netis.ru> <20090427054103.GA27529@night.netis.ru> <20090428125755.GA5242@night.netis.ru> <49F76BF6.4040709@gmail.com> <20090429054510.GA8267@night.netis.ru> <20090429090809.GA2995@ami.dom.local> <20090508062640.GA4555@night.netis.ru> <20090508104628.GA6287@ff.dom.local> <20090510073559.GA8929@night.netis.ru> <20090510124641.GA2978@ami.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090510124641.GA2978@ami.dom.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 02:46:41PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:35:59AM +0400, Alexander V. Lukyanov wrote: > > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:46:28AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > I can't see anything suspicious for now, except these UDP and TCP > > > warnings. Did you see similar messages with 2.6.27? Btw., could this > > > > Yes. Such messages show up with any kernel version. > > > > > eth0.987 be "connected" with any of this traffic? (IP# ?) > > > > No, eth0.987 is only used for traffic output. > > > > BTW, it seems that only actively used vlan interfaces have the problem > > (even when the traffic stops). Other vlan interfaces with little traffic > > can be removed with no problems. > > OK, I'll try to look around this, but how about trying 2.6.28.10 in > the meantime? It could limit "a bit" the number of places/lines. Looks like 2.6.28.10 does not have this refcnt problem. Also, after I have reversed net/ipv4/route.c changes from 2.6.29, the problem does not occur either. -- Alexander..