> Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Aaron T Porter <atporter@primate.net>
> To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Panic - tulip / ipchains / 2.2.9
>
>
> RedHat 6 with kernel 2.2.9 masq-ing my home net panics with:
>
> skput:over:c01afee0:28714 put:28714 dev:eth1 in interrupt handler - not syncing
>
> Nothing interesting at all in logs.
>
> tulip.c:v0.89H 5/23/98 becker@cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov
> eth1: Lite-On 82c168 PNIC at 0x6100, c0 00 2e f0 13 01, IRQ 9.
> eth1: MII transceiver found at MDIO address 1, config 3100 status 7829.
> eth1: Advertising 01e1 on PHY 1, previously advertising 01e1.
> eth1: Changing PNIC configuration to half-duplex, CSR6 812e0000.
interesting...ive been having similar occurences every so often since 2.2.1 (on
2.2.6 now) although my setup doesnt make use of masq'ing, i do use ipchains for
general firewall stuff. i have the exact same Lite-On chip as mentioned
above. the panic i get is more like this:
Kernel panic: skput:over: c4022b00:19327 put:19327 dev:eth0
In swapper task - not syncing
since it didnt produce an oops but managed to make the system mostly
unresponsive, i tried to get some useful info from sysrq's (wrote down
registers and memory info but not sure if its of any use). i had to kill all
tasks except init to get sysrq-s and -u to work (before i killed everything, -s
and -u were actually causing oops's themselves; afterwards they worked fine).
this brings up a question: if the kernel panics w/o an oops, can any of the
sysrq info be used to diagnose where the panic came from (similar to how
ksymoops works i guess)?
your message also just made me notice the version of the tulip driver we're
using is 0.89H. i thought the newest version was 0.90? why is an older version
being distributed in the kernel i wonder...
--james
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/