From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: crash with bridge and inconsistent handling of NETDEV_TX_OK Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20100420.182215.179278537.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20100420.181434.35828504.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net To: mpatocka@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:48676 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754250Ab0DUBWK (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:22:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Mikulas Patocka Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:20:09 -0400 (EDT) > > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, David Miller wrote: > >> From: Mikulas Patocka >> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:10:04 -0400 (EDT) >> >> > I see, but GRO is turned off on my interfaces, according to ethtool. >> >> GRO is just a flag bit, so it's possible that if your kernel is too >> old ethtool will always show that it's off. >> >> If you haven't turned off GRO explicitly, then it's a good bet that >> this is why it looks like it's off. And GRO is on by default. > > I have kernel 2.6.34-rc4, ethtool 2.6.33 and GRO is off. I haven't turned > it off, I left it on default. See my follow-up, what ethtool output makes you think GRO is off? "large-receive-offload" is not GRO