Re: 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 10:23 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Norbert Kiesel wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, I applied the patch and I'm running it right now, so far so good.
> > Here is the the output of lspci from the patched 2.6.13.1 (not sure if a
> > diff to the unpatched 2.6.13.1 or the 2.6.12.5 would be more useful, so
> > I settled for no diff :-).
> 
> Yes, now it looks better, except for a lspci quirk. You have:
> 
> > 0000:00:10.0 RAID bus controller: Silicon Image, Inc. SiI 0649
> >		Ultra ATA/100 PCI to ATA Host Controller (rev 01)
> 
> and lspci reports:
> 
> > 	Expansion ROM at 40000000 [disabled] [size=512K]
> 
> where the "disabled" comes from the fact that it looks at the sysfs data 
> structures, and the resource is indeed marked as disabled there (because 
> nothing enabled it explicitly).
> 
> But then reading the HW registers, we see:
> 
> > 30: 01 00 00 40 60 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0c 01 02 04
> 
> Ie now the ROM address value is 0x40000001, which means that as far as the 
> _hardware_ is concerned, the ROM is actually enabled.
> 
> That's because the cmd64x driver enabled the ROM by just writing the 
> enable bit directly, and never actually told the resource layer that it 
> had done so. Not a big deal - we've properly allocated the resource 
> region, so there's no overlap, there's just this strange disconnect 
> between what the hardware thinks and what the resource handling things.
> 
> Anyway, it all looks reasonable. Of course, exactly like with the hpt 
> driver, there doesn't seem to be any real _reason_ to enable the ROM in 
> the first place, and that code is #ifdef __i386__ anyway (so if there 
> _was_ a reason, it wouldn't work on anything else than an x86), so I 
> suspect we should just remove the ROM enable entirely.
> 
> But it really shouldn't matter - at least we now enable the ROM
> _correctly_, and I'm pretty sure (and certainly sincerely hope ;) that
> your lockup is gone.
> 
> 			Linus
> 

Hi,
system is stable again (I'm way beyond the point where I got lockups
before).  Thanks a bunch for the quick fix!  I'd recommend to include
this patch in 2.6.13.2.

Best,
  Norbert

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]
  Powered by Linux