Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 21 Feb 1996 18:27:10 +0100 (MET)
From:      "Georg-W. Koltermann" <gwk@racer.dkrz.de>
To:        darrenr@cyber.com.au
Cc:        ulf@pbinet.com, coredump@nervosa.com, darrenr@cyber.com.au, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: ide problems
Message-ID:  <199602211727.SAA13655@racer.dkrz.de>
In-Reply-To: <199602201629.DAA00933@plum.cyber.com.au> (message from Darren Reed on Wed, 21 Feb 1996 03:29:33 %2B1100 (EST))

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Darren Reed <darrenr@cyber.com.au>
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 03:29:33 +1100 (EST)
> Cc: coredump@nervosa.com, darrenr@cyber.com.au, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
> Content-Type: text
> Sender: owner-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
> Precedence: bulk
> 
> > > > wd0: interrupt timeout:
> > > > wd0: status 58<seekdone,drq> error 0
> > > > wd0: interrupt timeout:
> > > > wd0: status 50<seekdone> error 1<no_dam>
> > > > 
> > > > 2.1.0-RELEASE/Pentium-100
> 
> This seems to be dependant on some option I've defined for the kernel.
> 
> I suspect "AUTO_EOI_1" and/or "AUTO_EOI_2".
> 
> I've currently got a working kernel (no errors).
> 
> If anyone would like to examine two config files - one which doesn't
> result in the above and one which does - let me know.
> 
> darren
> 

I have AUTO_EOI_1, but *not* AUTO_EOI_2 in my kernel.  My system is a
386DX/40, 8MB RAM, no 80387, two IDE drives, wd ethernet, et4000 (ISA)
VGA adapter.  FreeBSD 2.1.0-RELEASE.

To repeat: I see the interrupt timeout just occasionally, and it
doesn't bother me.

Regards,
Georg-W. Koltermann, gwk@cray.com



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602211727.SAA13655>