From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Romieu Subject: Re: WARNING: at net/sched/sch_generic.c:256 dev_watchdog+0x277/0x280() Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 08:47:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20120503064726.GA17337@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <4F92EC8D.2010806@fiec.espol.edu.ec> <4FA18919.8010503@fiec.espol.edu.ec> <20120502225227.GA12309@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <4FA1C331.80909@fiec.espol.edu.ec> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Alex =?utf-8?B?VmlsbGFjw63CrXM=?= Lasso Return-path: Received: from violet.fr.zoreil.com ([92.243.8.30]:46168 "EHLO violet" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752455Ab2ECGxW (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2012 02:53:22 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FA1C331.80909@fiec.espol.edu.ec> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: (please avoid posting twice) Alex Villac=C3=AD=C2=ADs Lasso : [...] > I am currently away from the target computer. How should I check for = this? lspci? lspci can not tell much. Use 'dmesg | grep XID' instead. A complete dmesg would be welcome. It could help to know a few things : - does the problem qualify as a regression since some kernel version ? If so which one ? - can it be reproduced with a kernel that has not been vbox tainted ? - does networking recover ? Thanks. --=20 Ueimor