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/
