On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:27:28PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 05:23:37PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:16:37PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > > It means that we spun in the serial interrupt for more than 256 times
> > > and reached the limit on the amount of work we were prepared to do.
> > > Any idea what you were doing when these happened?
> >
> > Because ACPI was right and the second serial port isn't there?
>
> Well, it certainly looked like a serial port when it was probed - to the
> extent that even loopback mode worked. Hence I'd be very surprised if
> it wasn't there.
>
> It's the same test that's being applied as has been for the last 14
> years to detect if a port is present or not. Maybe Ted T'so would
> be aware if it can optimistically discover ports?
If the loopback check is still enabled - then no, I've seen the probe
code and that chance is next to zero, unless the i/o space is aliasing
to a real port.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs, SuSE CR
-
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]
