* assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
@ 2005-08-05 15:53 John Bäckstrand
2005-08-05 16:32 ` David S. Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: John Bäckstrand @ 2005-08-05 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: netdev
I get
KERNEL: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed at
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c (1476)
with 2.6.13-rc5, also with a small netpoll patch that shouldnt affect
these things. (Topic: "lockups with netconsole on e1000 on media
insertion").
I have a decent amount of dropped/overruns:
eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:50:DA:E0:BB:36
inet addr:83.233.27.60 Bcast:83.233.27.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::250:daff:fee0:bb36/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:9141685 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:794 frame:0
TX packets:10596040 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:950232746 (906.2 MiB) TX bytes:804721505 (767.4 MiB)
Interrupt:10 Base address:0x8800
eth3 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0E:0C:75:F1:2A
inet addr:10.32.0.1 Bcast:10.255.255.255 Mask:255.255.0.0
inet6 addr: fe80::20e:cff:fe75:f12a/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:16000 Metric:1
RX packets:16090188 errors:2329 dropped:4658 overruns:2329
frame:0
TX packets:34370559 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:1148661167 (1.0 GiB) TX bytes:4000412315 (3.7 GiB)
Base address:0x8400 Memory:e2000000-e2020000
ethtool -S eth3
NIC statistics:
rx_packets: 16195970
tx_packets: 34563822
rx_bytes: 1258213074
tx_bytes: 4205874656
rx_errors: 2332
tx_errors: 0
rx_dropped: 2332
tx_dropped: 0
multicast: 0
collisions: 0
rx_length_errors: 0
rx_over_errors: 0
rx_crc_errors: 0
rx_frame_errors: 0
rx_fifo_errors: 2332
rx_no_buffer_count: 0
rx_missed_errors: 2332
tx_aborted_errors: 0
tx_carrier_errors: 0
tx_fifo_errors: 0
tx_heartbeat_errors: 0
tx_window_errors: 0
tx_abort_late_coll: 0
tx_deferred_ok: 0
tx_single_coll_ok: 0
tx_multi_coll_ok: 0
rx_long_length_errors: 0
rx_short_length_errors: 0
rx_align_errors: 0
tx_tcp_seg_good: 2981894
tx_tcp_seg_failed: 0
rx_flow_control_xon: 0
rx_flow_control_xoff: 0
tx_flow_control_xon: 0
tx_flow_control_xoff: 0
rx_long_byte_count: 14143114962
rx_csum_offload_good: 16195740
rx_csum_offload_errors: 0
ethtool -S eth2
NIC statistics:
tx_deferred: 0
tx_multiple_collisions: 0
rx_bad_ssd: 0
---
John Bäckstrand
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
2005-08-05 15:53 assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed John Bäckstrand
@ 2005-08-05 16:32 ` David S. Miller
2005-08-06 2:24 ` Herbert Xu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: David S. Miller @ 2005-08-05 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sandos; +Cc: linux-kernel, netdev, herbert, akpm
From: John Bäckstrand <sandos@home.se>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:53:11 +0200
> KERNEL: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed at
> net/ipv4/tcp_input.c (1476)
I suspect this is a side effect of some changes Herbert Xu and
myself did to fix some other bugs.
Herbert, I think there are serious consequences for changing the
TSO counts for packets we have sent out already. This mucks up
all of the loss packet counts, which triggers asserts all over
in tcp_input.c
As you may note, we have all of this special code when we fragment
packets that updates all of the counters properly. And we're
not doing that for the new code that reinits the TSO count when
the MSS is found to no longer match.
It therefore may be desirable to keep Herbert's fix in there, but
back out my changes until they can be reimplemented correctly.
Herbert?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
2005-08-05 16:32 ` David S. Miller
@ 2005-08-06 2:24 ` Herbert Xu
2005-08-06 7:57 ` Herbert Xu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Herbert Xu @ 2005-08-06 2:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David S. Miller; +Cc: sandos, linux-kernel, netdev, akpm
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 09:32:08AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> It therefore may be desirable to keep Herbert's fix in there, but
> back out my changes until they can be reimplemented correctly.
>
> Herbert?
Sure. Let's back it out until a better solution is found.
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
2005-08-06 2:24 ` Herbert Xu
@ 2005-08-06 7:57 ` Herbert Xu
2005-08-06 12:06 ` John Bäckstrand
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Herbert Xu @ 2005-08-06 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David S. Miller; +Cc: sandos, linux-kernel, netdev, akpm
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 12:24:35PM +1000, herbert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 09:32:08AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> >
> > It therefore may be desirable to keep Herbert's fix in there, but
> > back out my changes until they can be reimplemented correctly.
> >
> > Herbert?
>
> Sure. Let's back it out until a better solution is found.
Hang on a second, the original poster mentioned rc5. Is this really
pristine rc5 with the one netpoll patch? If so then it can't be the
patches we're talking about because they only went in days later.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
2005-08-06 7:57 ` Herbert Xu
@ 2005-08-06 12:06 ` John Bäckstrand
2005-08-07 12:02 ` Herbert Xu
2005-08-06 13:30 ` David S. Miller
2005-08-07 13:25 ` John Bäckstrand
2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: John Bäckstrand @ 2005-08-06 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Herbert Xu; +Cc: David S. Miller, linux-kernel, netdev, akpm
> Hang on a second, the original poster mentioned rc5. Is this really
> pristine rc5 with the one netpoll patch? If so then it can't be the
> patches we're talking about because they only went in days later.
Yes, I have no other patches in, so if it was not in -RC5, I was not
running it.
---
John Bäckstrand
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
2005-08-06 7:57 ` Herbert Xu
2005-08-06 12:06 ` John Bäckstrand
@ 2005-08-06 13:30 ` David S. Miller
2005-08-07 13:25 ` John Bäckstrand
2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: David S. Miller @ 2005-08-06 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: herbert; +Cc: sandos, linux-kernel, netdev, akpm
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:57:17 +1000
> Hang on a second, the original poster mentioned rc5. Is this really
> pristine rc5 with the one netpoll patch? If so then it can't be the
> patches we're talking about because they only went in days later.
This seems to be confirmed now... so I'll hold off on the revert
for now.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
2005-08-06 12:06 ` John Bäckstrand
@ 2005-08-07 12:02 ` Herbert Xu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Herbert Xu @ 2005-08-07 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John B?ckstrand; +Cc: David S. Miller, linux-kernel, netdev, akpm
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 797 bytes --]
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 02:06:53PM +0200, John B?ckstrand wrote:
>
> Yes, I have no other patches in, so if it was not in -RC5, I was not
> running it.
OK having looked at it briefly I have a hunch that it may be the
fackets_out issue (when the effective MSS is reduced tcp_tso_acked
may increase fackets_out) I referred to in another thread.
However, I'd like to be more certain as to whether this is the
cause before we do anything. So please apply this patch and
attempt to reproduce the problem. It should give us more info
which may help in pin-pointing the problem.
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
[-- Attachment #2: p --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 554 bytes --]
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -1474,6 +1474,10 @@ static void tcp_mark_head_lost(struct so
int cnt = packets;
BUG_TRAP(cnt <= tp->packets_out);
+ if (unlikely(cnt <= tp->packets_out)) {
+ printk("packets_out = %d, fackets_out = %d, reordering = %d, sack_ok = 0x%x, mss_cache=%d\n", tp->packets_out, tp->fackets_out, tp->reordering, tp->rx_opt.sack_ok, tp->mss_cache);
+ dump_stack();
+ }
sk_stream_for_retrans_queue(skb, sk) {
cnt -= tcp_skb_pcount(skb);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
2005-08-06 7:57 ` Herbert Xu
2005-08-06 12:06 ` John Bäckstrand
2005-08-06 13:30 ` David S. Miller
@ 2005-08-07 13:25 ` John Bäckstrand
2005-08-07 17:11 ` Andrew Morton
2005-08-07 21:30 ` Herbert Xu
2 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: John Bäckstrand @ 2005-08-07 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Herbert Xu; +Cc: David S. Miller, linux-kernel, netdev, akpm
Someone asked if I could try to trigger this assertion again, and I'm
afraid I probably cannot, I didnt do anything special at the time. But
I've got something even better for you all, got a BUG from something
tcp-related. Mind you, I am trying to find a possibly hardware-related
issue here, so if this bug does not make any sense it might be my hardware!
I would actually want to know it if this is likely hardware-related or
not, since I have no idea if its RAM, CPU, motherboard or "only" a disk
that is broken. I know _something_ is broken, due to lockups, and seeing
a faulty disk indicated in a HDD diag, but only once, the disk is
apparently fine 99% of the time.
---
John Bäckstrand
[148475.651000] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[148475.651050] kernel BUG at net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:918!
[148475.651078] invalid operand: 0000 [#1]
[148475.651103] Modules linked in: sha256 aes_i586 dm_crypt ipt_state
ipt_multiport ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_filter netconsole md5 ipv6
af_packet pdc202xx_new e1000 8139cp de2104x i2c_viapro via686a
i2c_sensor i2c_core uhci_hcd usbcore 3c59x 8139too mii de4x5 crc32
parport_pc parport reiserfs dm_mod ip_nat_ftp iptable_nat ip_tables
ip_conntrack_ftp ip_conntrack rtc unix
[148475.651378] CPU: 0
[148475.651380] EIP: 0060:[<c0286619>] Not tainted VLI
[148475.651383] EFLAGS: 00010287 (2.6.13-rc5sand4)
[148475.651464] EIP is at tcp_tso_should_defer+0xc9/0xe0
[148475.651494] eax: 0000002b ebx: ce49a660 ecx: 0000002c edx:
ca008d00
[148475.651526] esi: 0000002c edi: 0000000e ebp: 99d57104 esp:
c0865dec
[148475.651556] ds: 007b es: 007b ss: 0068
[148475.651582] Process tor (pid: 10849, threadinfo=c0864000 task=c6234530)
[148475.651602] Stack: ce49a660 0000002c ca008d00 99d57104 c02866fc
ca008d00 ca008d00 ce49a660
[148475.651676] 0000003a 00000102 0000000e 00000001 ca008d00
ca008d00 ca008d00 c9290034
[148475.651751] c0286a49 ca008d00 000005b4 00000001 c0254674
81dd5b2f 81dd5b2f 00000010
[148475.651823] Call Trace:
[148475.651869] [<c02866fc>] tcp_write_xmit+0xcc/0x3e0
[148475.651910] [<c0286a49>] __tcp_push_pending_frames+0x39/0xd0
[148475.651947] [<c0254674>] kfree_skbmem+0x24/0x30
[148475.651988] [<c0283bbe>] tcp_rcv_established+0x26e/0x840
[148475.652033] [<c028c935>] tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x115/0x120
[148475.652072] [<c028cf8f>] tcp_v4_rcv+0x64f/0x890
[148475.652106] [<c02735b0>] ip_local_deliver_finish+0x0/0x1c0
[148475.652150] [<c0265a6e>] nf_hook_slow+0x6e/0x100
[148475.652199] [<c0272f63>] ip_local_deliver+0xe3/0x250
[148475.652234] [<c02735b0>] ip_local_deliver_finish+0x0/0x1c0
[148475.652272] [<c0273425>] ip_rcv+0x355/0x4e0
[148475.652309] [<c0273770>] ip_rcv_finish+0x0/0x290
[148475.652347] [<c0259f11>] netif_receive_skb+0x1f1/0x270
[148475.652394] [<c025a00f>] process_backlog+0x7f/0x100
[148475.652431] [<c025a10a>] net_rx_action+0x7a/0x120
[148475.652467] [<c011b9bd>] __do_softirq+0x7d/0x90
[148475.652509] [<c011b9f6>] do_softirq+0x26/0x30
[148475.652544] [<c010561e>] do_IRQ+0x1e/0x30
[148475.652588] [<c0103a92>] common_interrupt+0x1a/0x20
[148475.652630] Code: db 74 1d 89 f8 0f af c2 39 f0 0f 46 f0 31 d2 89 f0
f7 f3 31 d2 39 c1 73 cb ba 01 00 00 00 eb c4 6b c2 03 31 d2 39 c1 77 bb
eb ee <0f> 0b 96 03 20 2f 2e c0 eb 83 8b ba 7c 02 00 00 eb ee 90 8d 74
[148475.653330] <0>Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
2005-08-07 13:25 ` John Bäckstrand
@ 2005-08-07 17:11 ` Andrew Morton
2005-08-07 21:30 ` Herbert Xu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2005-08-07 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Bäckstrand; +Cc: herbert, davem, linux-kernel, netdev
John Bäckstrand <sandos@home.se> wrote:
>
> Someone asked if I could try to trigger this assertion again, and I'm
> afraid I probably cannot, I didnt do anything special at the time. But
> I've got something even better for you all, got a BUG from something
> tcp-related. Mind you, I am trying to find a possibly hardware-related
> issue here, so if this bug does not make any sense it might be my hardware!
>
> I would actually want to know it if this is likely hardware-related or
> not, since I have no idea if its RAM, CPU, motherboard or "only" a disk
> that is broken. I know _something_ is broken, due to lockups, and seeing
> a faulty disk indicated in a HDD diag, but only once, the disk is
> apparently fine 99% of the time.
>
> ---
> John Bäckstrand
>
>
> [148475.651000] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [148475.651050] kernel BUG at net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:918!
I think we've seen a couple of reports of this.
> [148475.651078] invalid operand: 0000 [#1]
> [148475.651103] Modules linked in: sha256 aes_i586 dm_crypt ipt_state
> ipt_multiport ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_filter netconsole md5 ipv6
> af_packet pdc202xx_new e1000 8139cp de2104x i2c_viapro via686a
> i2c_sensor i2c_core uhci_hcd usbcore 3c59x 8139too mii de4x5 crc32
> parport_pc parport reiserfs dm_mod ip_nat_ftp iptable_nat ip_tables
> ip_conntrack_ftp ip_conntrack rtc unix
> [148475.651378] CPU: 0
> [148475.651380] EIP: 0060:[<c0286619>] Not tainted VLI
> [148475.651383] EFLAGS: 00010287 (2.6.13-rc5sand4)
Can you tell us exactly which kernel this is based on? If it's 2.6.13-rc5
then it would be better to be testing 2.6.13-rc5-git<latest>, because some
net fixes have been recently merged.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
2005-08-07 13:25 ` John Bäckstrand
2005-08-07 17:11 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2005-08-07 21:30 ` Herbert Xu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Herbert Xu @ 2005-08-07 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John B?ckstrand; +Cc: David S. Miller, linux-kernel, netdev, akpm
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 03:25:55PM +0200, John B?ckstrand wrote:
>
> [148475.651000] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [148475.651050] kernel BUG at net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:918!
Yes, as Andrew said, this bug should be fixed in the latest git tree.
So please test with that plus the debugging patch to see if you can
reproduce the assertion again.
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
@ 2005-08-07 16:37 Heikki Orsila
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Heikki Orsila @ 2005-08-07 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List
Heikki Orsila wrote:
> There were big changes in tcp_output.c between rc1 and rc2, and the
> bug is triggered when using e1000 with rc2 or later. And because the
> bug does not happen on skge (new sk98 driver) it makes me guess it's a
> race condition of sorts.. I am surprised this bug wasn't noticed with
> rc2.
One more bit of info: there was no e1000 driver changes between rc1 and
rc2, which increases the evidence that the error was induced by
tcp_output.c.
--
Heikki Orsila Barbie's law:
heikki.orsila@iki.fi "Math is hard, let's go shopping!"
http://www.iki.fi/shd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
@ 2005-08-07 16:29 Heikki Orsila
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Heikki Orsila @ 2005-08-07 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Hang on a second, the original poster mentioned rc5. Is this really
> pristine rc5 with the one netpoll patch? If so then it can't be the
> patches we're talking about because they only went in days later.
I produced a similar panic on rc2 and later (which doesn't happen on
rc1). See my other post in this thread.
--
Heikki Orsila Barbie's law:
heikki.orsila@iki.fi "Math is hard, let's go shopping!"
http://www.iki.fi/shd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed
@ 2005-08-07 16:20 Heikki Orsila
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Heikki Orsila @ 2005-08-07 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List
David S. Miller wrote:
> I suspect this is a side effect of some changes Herbert Xu and
> myself did to fix some other bugs.
I think I crossed this bug independently today. I did some testing, and
got kernel panics when uploading files with ftp on a gigabit lan. The
error happens always at net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:918. Here's a matrix of
combinations that crashes or doesn't crash:
kernel what happens
2.6.12 no crash
2.6.13-rc1 & e1000 no crash
2.6.13-rc1 & skge no crash
2.6.13-rc2 & e1000 crash
2.6.13-rc2 & skge no crash
2.6.13-rc3 & e1000 crash
2.6.13-rc3 & skge no crash
2.6.13-rc5 & e1000 crash
2.6.13-rc5 & skge no crash
There were big changes in tcp_output.c between rc1 and rc2, and the bug
is triggered when using e1000 with rc2 or later. And because the bug
does not happen on skge (new sk98 driver) it makes me guess it's a race
condition of sorts.. I am surprised this bug wasn't noticed with rc2.
The crash happens just in the beginning of a tcp connection. Only some
packets are sent and then the sends stall by slowing down, and after 5
secs the kernel crashes. Basically usage pattern is this:
upload file a
upload file b
upload file a (replaces old file)
upload file b (replaces old file)
upload file a (replaces old file) => slowdown and then a crash in 5 secs
Here's the kernel greeting:
Kernel BUG at "net/ipv4/tcp_output.c":918
Invalid operand: 0000 [1]
CPU 0
Modules linked in:
Pid 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.13-rc5
RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff804d086d>] <ffffffff804d086d><__tcp_push_pending_frames+429>
...
Process swapper (pid: 0, threadinfo ffffffff807de000, task ffffffff80640ec0)
...
Call Trace: <IRQ> <ffffffff804ce30c><tcp_rcv_established+1964>
<...> <tcp_v4_do_rcv+37> ... <...><ip_local_deliver_finish+0>
<...> <tcp_v4_rcv+1483> ... <...><ip_local_deliver+322>
<...> <ip_rcv+1107> ... <...><netif_receive_skb+426>
<...> <process_backlog+154>
<...> <__do_softirq+83>
<...> <do_softirq+53>
<...> <ret_from_intr+0>
<...> <default_idle+0>
<...> <cpu_idle+49>
<...> <_sinittext+534>
<...> <>
<...> <>
<...> <>
<...> <>
<...> <>
<...> <>
...
RIP <ffffffff804d086d><__tcp_push_pending_frames+429> ...
<0>Kernel panic - not syncing: Aiee, killing interrupt handler!
Here's system info:
Linux e275d 2.6.13-rc2 #1 Sun Aug 7 18:48:05 EEST 2005 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
Gnu C 3.4.3
Gnu make 3.80
binutils 2.15.92.0.2
util-linux 2.12i
mount 2.12i
module-init-tools 3.0
e2fsprogs 1.38
jfsutils 1.1.4
reiserfsprogs line
reiser4progs line
xfsprogs 2.6.25
nfs-utils 1.0.6
Linux C Library 2.3.5
Dynamic linker (ldd) 2.3.5
Procps 3.2.5
Net-tools 1.60
Kbd 1.12
Sh-utils 5.2.1
udev 058
Modules Loaded
--
Heikki Orsila Barbie's law:
heikki.orsila@iki.fi "Math is hard, let's go shopping!"
http://www.iki.fi/shd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-08-07 21:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-08-05 15:53 assertion (cnt <= tp->packets_out) failed John Bäckstrand
2005-08-05 16:32 ` David S. Miller
2005-08-06 2:24 ` Herbert Xu
2005-08-06 7:57 ` Herbert Xu
2005-08-06 12:06 ` John Bäckstrand
2005-08-07 12:02 ` Herbert Xu
2005-08-06 13:30 ` David S. Miller
2005-08-07 13:25 ` John Bäckstrand
2005-08-07 17:11 ` Andrew Morton
2005-08-07 21:30 ` Herbert Xu
2005-08-07 16:20 Heikki Orsila
2005-08-07 16:29 Heikki Orsila
2005-08-07 16:37 Heikki Orsila
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).