On 2007.01.22 17:57:08 +0100, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> On 2007.01.22 17:12:40 +0100, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> > On 2007.01.21 18:17:01 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > Hmm, another miss, apparently.. Has anyone tried removing these lines
> > > >from nv_host_intr in 2.6.20-rc5 sata_nv.c and see what that does?
> > >
> > > /* bail out if not our interrupt */
> > > if (!(irq_stat & NV_INT_DEV))
> > > return 0;
> >
> > Running a kernel with the return statement replace by a line that prints
> > the irq_stat instead.
> >
> > Currently I'm seeing lots of 0x10 on ata1 and 0x0 on ata2.
>
> 40 minutes stress test now and no exception yet. What's interesting is
> that ata1 saw exactly one interrupt with irq_stat 0x0, all others that
> might have get dropped are as above.
> I'll keep it running for some time and will then re-enable the return
> statement to see if there's a relation between the irq_stat 0x0 and the
> exception.
No, doesn't seem to be related, did get 2 exceptions, but no irq_stat
0x0 for ata1. Syslog/dmesg has nothing new either, still the same
pattern of dismissed irq_stats.
Björn
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
