[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070726091157.GB3423@ff.dom.local>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:11:57 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Marcin Ĺšlusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jean-Baptiste Vignaud <vignaud@...dmail.fr>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
shemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-net <linux-net@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: 2.6.20->2.6.21 - networking dies after random time
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 10:10:31AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 10:13 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> > PS: Now, it seems to me Thomas could be the nearest. BTW, could somebody
> > give me some tip, how these re-triggered interrupts are skipped on dev's
> > reset before enable_irq?
>
> I think the correct solution is really not to resend level type
> interrupts. If the interrupt line is still active, then the interrupt
> comes up by itself. I'm cooking a patch for that.
>
> The other question is:
>
> Is the driver confused by the resent irq or is the chip-set unhappy
> about the resend ?
>
> We could figure the latter out by activating the software based resend
> method.
Probably I miss something, but isn't there any problem with level type,
when APIC re-triggers an interrupt, which is not acked by driver nor
card (after some hw reset/clear)?
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists