On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:45:09PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>
> Either that or some error in Herbert's recent checksum offload
> handling changes, such as, in fact I am highly suspicious of
> the second change listed below, you may want to try reverting
> just that one:
Indeed. My change depen
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:04:58 +1000
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:45:09PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > Either that or some error in Herbert's recent checksum offload
> > handling changes, such as, in fact I am highly suspicious of
> > the second change
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:37:14 -0700
>
> > So I think we did a bit of TCP chatter then no UDP at all?
> >
> > It's interesting that the test machine can see other people'
Oh well, one thing at a time. The good news is that I can reproduce the
problem with netperf.
kpm:/usr/src/netperf-2.4.3> netperf -H akpm2 -t UDP_RR
UDP REQUEST/RESPONSE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to akpm2
(172.18.116.155) port 0 AF_INET
netperf: receive_response: no response re
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:37:14 -0700
> So I think we did a bit of TCP chatter then no UDP at all?
>
> It's interesting that the test machine can see other people's DNS queries
> go past.
It's mysterious alright.
I can't say that the UDP's are going out c
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:12:40 -0700
>
> > which is just stupid. The rtnl_lock() is right there in ip_mc_join_group().
> > And this is a different architecture and config
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:12:40 -0700
> which is just stupid. The rtnl_lock() is right there in ip_mc_join_group().
> And this is a different architecture and config and compiler from yesterday's
> fun. And no scheduler patches involved here.
Perhaps some
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:45:57 -0700
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me play around with udpspam a bit.
tcpdump does show stuff coming in when I run udpspam against the test
machine from another host.
More rtnl weirdness. Running `ifup eth0' gave me:
Apr 23 14:53:57 localhost sma
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is nscd the caching named which you're referring to?
>
> I would respond, but I first checked how many responses show up when
> giving "caching named fedora" to google, and decided that you can
> figure it out yo
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:56:39 -0700
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:27:19 -0700
> >
> > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:18:10 -0700
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:27:19 -0700
>
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROT
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:27:19 -0700
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:07:34 -0700
> >
> > > The interesting bit is:
> > ...
>
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:07:34 -0700
>
> > The interesting bit is:
> ...
> > I think I saw the same problem maybe 1.5 weeks ago on this machine, but I
> > didn't have tim
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:07:34 -0700
> The interesting bit is:
...
> I think I saw the same problem maybe 1.5 weeks ago on this machine, but I
> didn't have time to investigate further. So it's not some recent thing.
My initial reaction is that DNS respo
14 matches
Mail list logo
