* David P. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo -
>
> I finished testing the rolled up patch that you provided. It seems to work
> just fine. Thank you for putting this all together and persevering in this
> long and complex discussion.
> Here are the results, on the offending laptop, using 2.6.24-rc5 plus that
> one patch.
>
> First: booted with normal boot parameters (no io_delay=):
>
> According to dmesg, 0xed is used.
>
> hwclock ran fine, hundreds of times.
> my shell script loop doing "cat /dev/nvram > /dev/null" ran fine,
> several times.
> Running Rene's "port 80" speed test ran fine once, then froze the system
> hard. (expected)
>
> Second: booted with io_delay=0x80, several tests, rebooting after freezes:
>
> hwclock froze system hard. (this is the problem that drove me to find
> this bug).
> my shell script loop froze system hard.
>
> Third: booted with io_delay=none:
>
> hwclock ran fine, also hundreds of times.
> my shell script loop ran fine several times.
> Running rene's port80 test ran fine twice, froze system hard on third
> try.
>
> Fourth: booted with io_delay=udelay:
>
> hwclock ran fine, also hundreds of times.
> my shell script loop ran fine several times.
> Running Rene's port80 test ran fine, froze system hard on second try.
>
> Analysis:
>
> patch works fine, and default to 0xed seems super conservative. I
> will probably use the boot parameter io_delay=none, because I don't
> seem to have any I/O
> devices that require any delays - and this way I can find any that
> do.
great, and thanks for the extensive testing! I've added this line to the
patch:
Tested-by: "David P. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
if you dont mind.
Ingo
--
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/
