From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 27 22:22:12 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448AB16A4D2
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:22:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13EB43D66
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:22:11 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6RMLvDa061031;
	Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200407272222.i6RMLvDa061031@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: conrads@cox.net
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20040727104106.conrads@cox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Questionable code in sys/dev/sound/pcm/channel.c
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:22:12 -0000

On 27 Jul, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> 
> On 26-Jul-2004 Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
>> 
>> On 26-Jul-2004 Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
>>> I'm a little perplexed at the following bit of logic in chn_write()
>>> (which is where the "interrupt timeout, channel dead" messages are
>>> being generated).
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> Also, at the end of the function:
>>> 
>>>     if (count <= 0) {
>>>         c->flags |= CHN_F_DEAD;
>>>         printf("%s: play interrupt timeout, channel dead\n",
>>> c->name);
>>>     }
>>> 
>>>     return ret;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Could it be that the conditional test is wrong here?  Perhaps
>>> we should be using (count < 0) instead?
>> 
>> I'm now running a kernel built with this last conditional test
>> changed to "if (count < 0)" and sound is still working OK.  Have yet
>> to see if this eliminates the interrupt timeout messages.
> 
> Well, that was a failure.  :-)  Didn't see any timeout error messages,
> but the device still died eventually, nonetheless.  I've since changed
> back to the original code.

That's an interesting data point. At this point I'd start looking at the
driver code for your sound hardware.  I suspect that the driver
interrupt code is either no longer seeing interrupts, or it is no longer
calling chn_intr().