On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Artyom Tarasenko <atar4q...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 2010/2/12 Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com>: >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Artyom Tarasenko >> <atar4q...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> Don't raise interrupt when not enabled. >>> Don't set DMA_INTR bit spuriously. >>> Don't print misleading debug messages "Raise IRQ" when not raising any. >> >> This breaks most of my Linux tests. *BSD are unaffected. For example >> sparc-test 2.0: >> >> eth0: LANCE 52:54:00:12:34:56 >> esp0: IRQ 36 SCSI ID 7 Clk 40MHz CCYC=25000 CCF=8 TOut 167 NCR53C9XF(espfast) >> ESP: Total of 1 ESP hosts found, 1 actually in use. >> scsi0 : Sparc ESP100A-FAST >> esp0: Aborting command >> esp0: dumping state >> esp0: dma -- cond_reg<a4400311> addr<f0010e64> >> esp0: SW [sreg<11> sstep<04> ireg<18>] >> esp0: HW reread [sreg<93> sstep<00> ireg<10>] >> esp0: current command [tgt<02> lun<00> pphase<CLUELESS> cphase<DATAIN>] >> esp0: disconnected >> esp0: Aborting command >> esp0: dumping state >> esp0: dma -- cond_reg<a4400310> addr<f0010e64> >> esp0: SW [sreg<11> sstep<04> ireg<18>] >> esp0: HW reread [sreg<03> sstep<04> ireg<00>] >> esp0: current command [tgt<02> lun<00> pphase<UNISSUED> cphase<UNISSUED>] >> esp0: disconnected >> esp0: Resetting scsi bus >> esp0: SCSI bus reset interrupt >> esp0: Aborting command >> esp0: dumping state >> esp0: dma -- cond_reg<a4400211> addr<f000d007> >> esp0: SW [sreg<03> sstep<04> ireg<80>] >> esp0: HW reread [sreg<91> sstep<04> ireg<18>] >> esp0: current command [tgt<02> lun<00> pphase<UNISSUED> cphase<UNISSUED>] >> esp0: disconnected >> scsi: Device offlined - not ready after error recovery: host 0 channel >> 0 id 2 lun 0 >> >> Since Open/NetBSD still works, there may be yet again another bug that >> your patch uncovers. > > Looks like Linux has problems with the fist part of the patch: not > raising irqs when they are not enabled. > The part is actually not relevant for Solaris, so we could just skip > it. But it would be nicer to find this another bug. > It seems that there is some asymmetry: Solaris complained about > spurious interrupts only on write operations. > Do you have an idea why setting the DMA_INTR bit and raising the irq > was split between multiple functions?
I'd suspect my sloppiness. ;-)
