Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:14:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Daniel O'Connor <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ACPI interrupt problems? (Was: HEADS UP: Starting socketlocking merge) Message-ID: <20040613221018.C17008@root.org> In-Reply-To: <200406141433.42584.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040612170314.90086R-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20040613210504.D16707@root.org> <200406141433.42584.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:36, Nate Lawson wrote: > > > That's difficult for those of us who are affected by the ACPI interrupt > > > allocation problems. If ACPI isn't going to be fixed soon (it's been 2 > > > weeks already), then the last commits should be backed. > > > > It would help if you'd point out the email message with this problem and > > what commits caused it. I'm not aware of any new interrupt problems and > > haven't seen email about it on acpi@. > > I don't know which commit but I believe John Baldwin is working on a fix. > > The problem occurs between 02:30 29/05/2004 UTC and 04:00 29/05/2004 UTC. > (ie code from the former works, code from the later doesn't) > > The problem exhibits itself as bfe0 watchdog timeouts (on my system anyway) Have you isolated it further? Try backing out rev 1.15 of acpi_pci_link.c, referenced by this email (click on link for a patch): http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=2053288+0+archive/2004/cvs-all/20040530.cvs-all I do believe John is working on this. A temporary backout might be in order but I'll let him decide on that. Either way, the right direction for this stuff is to keep moving forward and this commit was definitely a step that way. -Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040613221018.C17008>