On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 05:45:30PM +0800, Qin Bo wrote: > Dec 10 10:49:14 netcfg[3916]: INFO: eth0 is disconnected. (MII) > Dec 10 10:49:14 netcfg[3916]: INFO: eth0 is not a wireless interface. > Continuing. > Dec 10 10:49:14 netcfg[3916]: INFO: eth1 is disconnected. (MII) > Dec 10 10:49:14 netcfg[3916]: INFO: eth1 is not a wireless interface. > Continuing. > Dec 10 10:49:14 kernel: [ 93.801715] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth1: link is > not ready > Dec 10 10:49:14 kernel: [ 93.804385] e1000: eth1 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps > Full Duplex, Flow Control: RX/TX > Dec 10 10:49:15 netcfg[3916]: INFO: eth2 is disconnected. (MII) > Dec 10 10:49:15 netcfg[3916]: INFO: eth2 is not a wireless interface. > Continuing. > Dec 10 10:49:15 kernel: [ 93.867068] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth2: link is > not ready > Dec 10 10:49:15 main-menu[358]: (process:3915): udhcpc (v1.17.1) started > Dec 10 10:49:15 main-menu[358]: (process:3915): Sending discover... > Dec 10 10:49:15 main-menu[358]: (process:3915): Sending discover... > Dec 10 10:49:15 main-menu[358]: (process:3915): Sending discover... > Dec 10 10:49:15 main-menu[358]: (process:3915): udhcpc: has been called with > an unknown param: leasefail > Dec 10 10:49:15 main-menu[358]: (process:3915): Received SIGTERM > Dec 10 10:49:15 main-menu[358]: INFO: Menu item 'netcfg' succeeded but
Is this another case of a driver/NIC taking longer to get link up after being enabled than the installer is willing to wait? I seem to recall a bnx2 user a few days ago reporting a similar problem. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101210154825.gr12...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
