From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Jun 21 3:53:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mailhost.firstcallgroup.co.uk (dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk [194.200.93.142]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D14237B40B for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 03:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pfrench by mailhost.firstcallgroup.co.uk with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17LM30-0001nX-00; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:53:46 +0100 To: holger.kipp@alogis.com Subject: Re: Status of fxp / smp problem? Cc: frank@exit.com, pjklist@ekahuna.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <3D12FBAB.8C676DA9@alogis.com> Message-Id: From: Pete French Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:53:46 +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > You have two drivers who have to react to the same IRQ, so maybe its some > sort of race condition... But thats more for developers, who know their > IRQs by heart . :-) is there any guide to how IRQ's are handled ? I had a thought - as I have a machine I can reproduce this on, plus I know exactly what IRQ it is and how many things should be run then maybe I could code in some very specific debugging code for my kernel and generate a panic the first time sym isnt checked when IRQ 15 is fired. Could do that by counting number of checked in the interrupt loop possibly ? > Hmm, looks like Gerard didn't have the time to polish his code yet > and commit it. I'd suggest we give him some more time before we complain, > as he also has a living ;-) Sorry, wasnt intended as a complaint - more that I didnt know if the workaround was actually intended to be committed or not, as the better solution would be to find and the actual bug, and not put a workaround into the code. -pcf. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message