Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 13:23:01 +0200 From: Bernard.Steiner@Germany.EU.net To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: couple of bugs in 2.0R Message-ID: <199504181123.NAA03844@qwerty.Germany.EU.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 17 Apr 1995 19:28:49 PDT. <199504180228.TAA00214@corbin.Root.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>solution), and now I don't get any more of those
>stray irq 11
>ed0 timeout
>messages. Unless solved, can we get a flag for ed that sort of increases
the
>watchdog timer significantly ?
Umm, that would increase the timeout to 20 seconds. This is not desirea
ble
and should never be necessary. I don't see how increasing it above what it
currently is could affect the problem at all (the interrupt should occur i
n
less than 100ms no matter what happens).
Hmm. Very strange, indeed. Note, however, that the kernel reported the
problems in the exact sequence given above, i.e.
first stray irq 11 and then ed0 timeout; both at a snap of a finger's time
from ifconfig ed0 up.
It works now with the watchdog at 20; I've re-tried the original kernel with a
watchdog set to 2, and that failed.
Is there anything I should do in order to help track this down, or just set
the watchdog to 20 which doesn't make sense but works (note: there wasn't even
a two second latency in accessing the ethernet) ?
Thanks,
Bernard
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504181123.NAA03844>