From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: LRO disable warnings on kernel 2.6.38 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:17:57 +0000 Message-ID: <1300457877.26693.53.camel@localhost> References: <1300446743.11985.317.camel@firesoul.comx.local> <1300453519.2888.118.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer , netdev , Neil Horman , Alexander Duyck To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mail.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:12515 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754075Ab1CROSF convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:18:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1300453519.2888.118.camel@edumazet-laptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 14:05 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le vendredi 18 mars 2011 =C3=A0 12:12 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer a= =C3=A9crit : > > Hi > >=20 > > I'm seeing the LRO disable warnings using kernel 2.6.38: > >=20 > > [ 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 hp= sa 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] [] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0x= c0 > > [ 8.872675] [] ? warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20 > > [ 8.872680] [] ? dev_disable_lro+0x7b/0x80 > > [ 8.872686] [] ? devinet_sysctl_forward+0x147= /0x180 > > [ 8.872691] [] ? proc_sys_call_handler+0x97/0= xd0 > > [ 8.872700] [] ? proc_sys_write+0x14/0x20 > > [ 8.872704] [] ? vfs_write+0xc8/0x180 > > [ 8.872707] [] ? sys_write+0x51/0x90 > > [ 8.872712] [] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x= 1b > > [ 8.872714] ---[ end trace 6245283cb8d484cc ]--- > >=20 > > The strange part is that I didn't see this warning on my testlab an= d > > pre-prod servers. The warning is from the first production server, > > which got kernel 2.6.38 deployed this morning. > >=20 > > The NIC driver is igb. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > We usually use a 6 port NIC from Hotlava, which is based on the sam= e > > chip 82576 and also uses the same igb driver. > >=20 > > 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 > >=20 > > 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 > >=20 > > I don't understand why I don't see the warning on my pre-prod serve= r, > > which only have the Hotlava NIC?!? > >=20 >=20 > Hmm, WARN_ON() message is not very nice in this case I'm afraid, we d= ont > even know offender WARN is correct as this is a driver bug. But I agree that the device/driver ID should be included. Ben. > 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); > =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html --=20 Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.