From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41395) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SF5mv-0006Ib-Au for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:36:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SF5mk-0002mM-2G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:36:51 -0400 Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]:61939) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SF5mj-0002lo-Oe for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:36:41 -0400 Received: by lahe6 with SMTP id e6so5009305lah.4 for ; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:36:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120403134146.GF28553@arachsys.com> References: <20120402153722.GA30499@arachsys.com> <20120403071328.GB27304@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> <20120403081313.GD1283@arachsys.com> <20120403124217.GN1283@arachsys.com> <20120403134146.GF28553@arachsys.com> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 16:36:37 +0100 Message-ID: From: Stefan Hajnoczi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Intermittent e1000 failure on qemu-kvm 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Chris Webb Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Chris Webb wrote: > Stefan Hajnoczi writes: > >> No, that's weird. =A0I would have simply tried "b start_xmit" and as >> long as the binary has symbols gdb would know what to do. > > I'll get another one and give it a go. There wasn't any particular reason= I > gave a line number rather than a function except that I worried there mig= ht > be start_xmit in a variety of different nic models compiled into qemu so = I > might end up setting the breakpoint on the wrong one. b hw/e1000.c:start_= xmit > maybe? There is only one start_xmit() in qemu. >> Are you sure no other guest has the same MAC address or IP address? >> This weird behavior sounds similar to what happens when you have >> multiple devices on a network using the same address - the results are >> very confusing :). > > Yes, I agree! However, in this case there's no other guest with the same = MAC > or IP address on the network. I've explicitly rechecked this to be sure, = and > also deliberately varied the MAC address to something I know can't be > generated by our scripts. In any case, I'm using the same MAC and IP addr= ess > for every reboot of this VM, and usually (19 times out of 20) it works fi= ne. The lack of ARP reply is a host networking problem. Have you checked host dmesg(1) output just in case there was a kernel message related to this? Stefan