Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Regression: kernels greater than 2..6.27.3-30 fail to initialise Realtek RTL 8101E Ethernet controller|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Tim Hawkins <tim.hawkins>|
|Component:||kernel||Assignee:||Kernel Maintainer List <kernel-maint>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||dr.diesel, dyoung, huor.carnesir, kernel-maint, quintela, rc040203, romieu, suckfish, tcallawa, trevor.davenport, yaneti|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-10-31 13:24:37 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Tim Hawkins 2008-10-24 07:11:54 EDT
Recent updates to kernel after 184.108.40.206-30 have resulted in no "eth0" device being listed for this device Booting with 220.127.116.11-30 allows the device to initialise. The log entries for -34 and -39 kernels.. nm_device_hw_bring_up(): (eth0) device not up after timeout The device is loading the r8169 driver in both working and not working kernels.
Comment 1 Yanko Kaneti 2008-10-24 08:08:15 EDT
This is fixed for me in 18.104.22.168-44, as the offending patch was disabled.
Comment 2 Dave Jones 2008-10-24 11:21:01 EDT
*** Bug 468251 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Dave Jones 2008-10-24 18:19:16 EDT
*** Bug 468435 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Andy Lawrence 2008-10-24 19:39:06 EDT
-44 no Joy for me! [root@localhost ~]# uname -r 22.214.171.124-44.fc10.i686 [root@localhost ~]# ifconfig eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:18 Base address:0xa000 [root@localhost ~]# lspci | grep Ethernet 05:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8101E PCI Express Fast Ethernet controller (rev 01) [root@localhost ~]#
Comment 5 Andy Lawrence 2008-10-24 19:47:31 EDT
Sorry, forgot: 24 19:38:41 localhost NetworkManager: <WARN> nm_device_hw_bring_up(): (eth0): device not up after timeout! With the -44 kernel.
Comment 6 Dave Jones 2008-10-24 20:03:53 EDT
ugh. Andy, what was the last kernel that worked for you?
Comment 7 Andy Lawrence 2008-10-24 20:14:13 EDT
Hey Dave, looks like 126.96.36.199-27.rc1.fc10.i686 but I'd have to reinstall it to be sure. Shall I DL it from Koji and try it?
Comment 8 Chris 2008-10-24 21:14:31 EDT
The last working kernel here was 188.8.131.52-30.rc1.fc10.i686 -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=321445
Comment 9 Yanko Kaneti 2008-10-25 02:38:08 EDT
FWIW, the device that got broken (-34, -39) by the patch and now works (-44, -47) for me is Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller [10ec:8168] (rev 02) The symptoms were the same as here.
Comment 10 John Poelstra 2008-10-25 11:04:30 EDT
adding to blocker... I can't tell from the last comment if this issues is fixed or still open.
Comment 11 Francois Romieu 2008-10-25 11:59:52 EDT
This is fixed in 2.6.28-rc1 since commit e1564ec938b759268d6e67f24b5d6f429da4a5a9. 2.6.27 is not affected. -- Ueimor
Comment 12 Ralf Corsepius 2008-10-25 12:30:40 EDT
kernel-184.108.40.206-39.fc10.i686 didn't work for me. kernel-220.127.116.11-44.fc10.i686 works again. 01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8101E PCI Express Fast Ethernet controller (rev 02)
Comment 13 Chris 2008-10-25 13:39:04 EDT
This one: 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 01) is still broken with kernel-18.104.22.168-44.fc10.i686
Comment 14 Chuck Ebbert 2008-10-25 16:04:57 EDT
Okay, two patches were merged upstream on Wed Oct 22, two days after I put the update to the 2.6.27-git driver into F10 that caused this bug. With those two patches we should be able to update to the latest driver. Or maybe not, since there's still a risk of regressions. The driver is broken for a different group of people without that update -- see bug #460747
Comment 15 Francois Romieu 2008-10-25 17:33:45 EDT
The fix was included in mainline during the merge of 2242d5eff17cf91110a3c44747f9f2e1a938cbda (Fri Oct 24 04:19:54 2008), so it came a bit after Oct 22. I have been reported no regression for the post-2.6.27 r8169 driver which could not be explained by 7bf6bf4803df1adc927f585168d2135fb019c698. There are several confirmed bugfixes in 2.6.28-rc1 which are not included in 2.6.27 as they came after the previous merge window and did not deserve the "fix a regression" label: - a2de6b89b74b28052e293fdb39975a5a03c432e0 r8169: wake up the PHY of the 8168 - 523a609496dbc3897e530db2a2f27650d125ea00 r8169: fix RxMissed register access If you do not trust the r8169.c driver in 2.6.28-rc1 and want to stay with a 2.6.27 driver, you should really consider these two patches. -- Ueimor
Comment 16 Andy Lawrence 2008-10-26 18:56:00 EDT
Chuck, good deal. Let me know which kernel it is once built and I'll test asap.
Comment 17 Chris 2008-10-26 23:01:16 EDT
kernel -47 and -51 are still broken for me
Comment 18 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-10-27 14:25:02 EDT
Just as a datapoint: 22.214.171.124-44.fc10.x86_64 got my networking working again: 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168B PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 02)
Comment 19 Andy Lawrence 2008-10-27 18:29:43 EDT
All is working with the 126.96.36.199-51.fc10.i686 Kernel Chuck built! Thanks Chuck!
Comment 20 Chris 2008-10-28 14:34:38 EDT
fyi: I just booted an old 2.6.26 kernel and the card doesn't work with this kernel, too. Although I can remember (and still have logs to proof), that I had no problems until 188.8.131.52-30.rc1, this exact same version (-30) is not working anymore. Could the NIC be physically damaged?
Comment 21 Francois Romieu 2008-10-28 15:47:48 EDT
(In reply to comment #20) [..] > anymore. Could the NIC be physically damaged? I do not think so but it commonly needs a complete power-down and a removal of the power cable. -- Ueimor
Comment 22 Chris 2008-10-29 01:44:54 EDT
(In reply to comment #21) > [..] > > Could the NIC be physically damaged? > > I do not think so but it commonly needs a complete power-down and a > removal of the power cable. D'oh! Working again... Thanks a lot!