Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:02:02 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren?= Schmidt <sos@DeepCore.dk> Cc: Putinas Piliponis <putinas.piliponis@icnspot.net> Subject: Re: system lockup - ata spurious interrupts - somehow updated Message-ID: <20040321140202.5e93401c@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <405D7D7F.3090209@DeepCore.dk> References: <405B9DCD.9040907@6by9.org> <0a0c01c40e90$2d86e070$32cba1cd@science1> <000401c40f33$86ce9210$1e64a8c0@spotripoli.local> <405D7D7F.3090209@DeepCore.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:33:19 +0100
S=F8ren Schmidt <sos@DeepCore.dk> wrote:
> Now, the above is more likely an interrupt setup/routing problem of=20
> sorts, if you get spurious interrupts *something* is yanking the=20
> interrupt line, but ATA knows that it hasn't requested anything and=20
> spits out the "spurious" warning.
Does this also explain why I get a freezed system at boot time after
alot of those warnings when I enable HT (-current as of yesterday)?
> That said, the ICH5 support is written "blindfolded" as I do not have=20
> any such HW here in the lab. So if there is a problem with ATA on those,=
=20
> someone with the HW and enough kernel clue should look into it (or=20
> someone could land the needed HW in my lab, which could also bring=20
> support for the SW RAID on intel's)...
I have the hardware and I'm willing to fix this problem. What kernel
clue are we talking about?
Bye,
Alexander.
--=20
I will be available to get hired in April 2004.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint =3D C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040321140202.5e93401c>