[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070528210555.GA4494@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 23:05:55 +0200
From: Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
To: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>
Cc: Emmanuel Fust? <emmanuel.fuste@...oste.net>,
tsbogend <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
pcnet32 <pcnet32@...izon.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PCNET32] Lock solid with netconsole
Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca> :
[...]
> Hmm, I have been seeing lockups too and asked about doing something
> almost exactly the same as this recently, but was told that it shouldn't
> need irqs disabled at this point.
Yes. The patch should not be needed.
OTOH, it is still interesting to know if it makes a difference, though
I do not really figure why afterwards (the local irq thread could get
interrupted and the interrupting thread printk() before returning but
I doubt that it is realistic).
> Well if it makes netconsole more stable, I think I will try adding it to
> and see if it makes the problems go away for good (my problem only happens
> at random and can be days between it happening).
One must ensure that pcnet32_{interrupt/hard_start_xmit} do not try to
printk() too.
--
Ueimor
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists