Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:42:45 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Sven Willenberger <sven@dmv.com>, stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Panic in 6.2-PRERELEASE with bge on amd64 Message-ID: <20070110132839.X16378@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200701091150.15274.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <1168211205.22629.6.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <20070109124826.M79616@delplex.bde.org> <1168353425.29047.8.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <200701091150.15274.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 09 January 2007 09:37, Sven Willenberger wrote: >> On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 12:50 +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: >>> Oops. I should have asked for the statment in bge_rxeof(). >> >> #7 0xffffffff801d5f17 in bge_rxeof (sc=0xffffffff8836b000) > at /usr/src/sys/dev/bge/if_bge.c:2528 >> 2528 m->m_pkthdr.len = m->m_len = cur_rx->bge_len - > ETHER_CRC_LEN; >> >> (where m is defined as: >> 2449 struct mbuf *m = NULL; >> ) > > It's assigned earlier in between those two places. Its initialization here is just a style bug. > Can you 'p rxidx' as well > as 'p sc->bge_cdata.bge_rx_std_chain[rxidx]' and 'p > sc->bge_cdata.bge_rx_jumbo_chain[rxidx]'? Also, are you using jumbo frames > at all? Also look at nearby chain entries (especially at (rxidx - 1) mod 512)). I think the previous 255 entries and the rxidx one should be non-NULL since we should have refilled them as we used them (so the one at rxidx is least interesting since we certainly just refilled it), and the next 256 entries should be NULL since we bogusly only use half of the entries. If the problem is uninitialization, then I expect all 512 entries except the one just refilled at rxidx to be NULL. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070110132839.X16378>