Bug#590582: 3c59x: NETDEV WATCHDOG: transmit timed out

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Hi Karol,

Karol Szkudlarek wrote:

> eth0: Resetting the Tx ring pointer.
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> WARNING: at net/sched/sch_generic.c:222 dev_watchdog+0x8f/0xdc()
> Modules linked in: ipt_MASQUERADE xt_tcpudp xt_state iptable_mangle iptable_nat nf_nat nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_conntrack iptable_filter ppp_deflate zlib_deflate zlib_inflate bsd_comp ppp_async ipv6 ppp_generic slhc vfat fat nls_base ext2 reiserfs xfs dm_snapshot dm_mirror dm_log dm_mod sd_mod usbhid hid ff_memless it87 hwmon_vid i2c_dev ip_tables x_tables usb_storage sr_mod loop evdev snd_emu10k1_synth snd_emux_synth psmouse snd_seq_virmidi snd_seq_midi_emul parport_pc parport serio_raw pcspkr snd_emu10k1 firmware_class snd_ac97_codec ac97_bus snd_pcm_oss snd_mixer_oss snd_pcm snd_page_alloc snd_util_mem snd_hwdep snd_seq_dummy snd_seq_oss snd_seq_midi snd_rawmidi i2c_viapro snd_seq_midi_event i2c_core snd_seq snd_timer snd_seq_device button emu10k1_gp via_ircc snd gameport irda via_agp agpgart shpchp pci_hotplug crc_ccitt soundcore ext3 jbd mbcache ide_cd_mod cdrom ide_disk ata_generic libata scsi_mod dock floppy uhci_hcd usbcore via82cxxx ide_pci_generic ide_core 3c59x mii thermal processor fan thermal_sys [last unloaded: scsi_wait_scan]
> Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.26-2-686 #1
>  [<c0122633>] warn_on_slowpath+0x40/0x66
>  [<c0122ad7>] release_console_sem+0x173/0x18c
>  [<c0122f9f>] printk+0x14/0x18
>  [<e083a6fe>] dump_tx_ring+0xc2/0xe8 [3c59x]
>  [<c0122f9f>] printk+0x14/0x18
>  [<e083d1bd>] vortex_tx_timeout+0x156/0x231 [3c59x]
>  [<e083d278>] vortex_tx_timeout+0x211/0x231 [3c59x]
>  [<c02673e5>] dev_watchdog+0x8f/0xdc
>  [<c0129748>] run_timer_softirq+0x11a/0x17c
>  [<c0267356>] dev_watchdog+0x0/0xdc
>  [<c0126669>] __do_softirq+0x66/0xd3
>  [<c012671b>] do_softirq+0x45/0x53
>  [<c01269d2>] irq_exit+0x35/0x69
>  [<c0105f43>] do_IRQ+0x52/0x63
>  [<c01042ab>] common_interrupt+0x23/0x28
>  [<e082429a>] acpi_idle_enter_simple+0x195/0x203 [processor]

Thanks for reporting, and sorry to take so long to get to it.  Was
this reproducible?  If so, is it still reproducible?

Regards,
Jonathan