Re: Interrupt storm with shared interrupt on digi(4)
* John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080604 11:12] wrote: On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:04:18 pm Peter Jeremy wrote: BTW, your MUA's list-reply configuration don't recognize that freebsd-stable@ and stable@ are aliases. Yes, kmail is broken and the authors refuse to fix it. It happens on reply to a foo@ e-mail (it changes the 'To' to 'freebsd-foo@' because of the List-Id header and leaves foo@ in the 'CC' field). Note that there isn't anything in the List headers that says that foo@ is an alias for [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just wish I could turn off the List-Id crap and use plain old reply-to-all, but that is where the kmail developers disagree. wtf.why not just have a checkbox to toggle the behavior? -- - Alfred Perlstein ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Interrupt storm with shared interrupt on digi(4)
On Thursday 05 June 2008 02:19:31 am Alfred Perlstein wrote: * John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080604 11:12] wrote: On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:04:18 pm Peter Jeremy wrote: BTW, your MUA's list-reply configuration don't recognize that freebsd-stable@ and stable@ are aliases. Yes, kmail is broken and the authors refuse to fix it. It happens on reply to a foo@ e-mail (it changes the 'To' to 'freebsd-foo@' because of the List-Id header and leaves foo@ in the 'CC' field). Note that there isn't anything in the List headers that says that foo@ is an alias for [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just wish I could turn off the List-Id crap and use plain old reply-to-all, but that is where the kmail developers disagree. wtf.why not just have a checkbox to toggle the behavior? That was my request (and I found at least 2 other open bugs for the same issue when I looked again yesterday). The developers reply was an option is not an option. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Interrupt storm with shared interrupt on digi(4)
* John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080605 07:58] wrote: On Thursday 05 June 2008 02:19:31 am Alfred Perlstein wrote: * John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080604 11:12] wrote: On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:04:18 pm Peter Jeremy wrote: BTW, your MUA's list-reply configuration don't recognize that freebsd-stable@ and stable@ are aliases. Yes, kmail is broken and the authors refuse to fix it. It happens on reply to a foo@ e-mail (it changes the 'To' to 'freebsd-foo@' because of the List-Id header and leaves foo@ in the 'CC' field). Note that there isn't anything in the List headers that says that foo@ is an alias for [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just wish I could turn off the List-Id crap and use plain old reply-to-all, but that is where the kmail developers disagree. wtf.why not just have a checkbox to toggle the behavior? That was my request (and I found at least 2 other open bugs for the same issue when I looked again yesterday). The developers reply was an option is not an option. Did you try sending him email with forged headers a few times with List-Id set to something embarassing? What's his email? I'll do it. -Alfred ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Interrupt storm with shared interrupt on digi(4)
On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:04:18 pm Peter Jeremy wrote: BTW, your MUA's list-reply configuration don't recognize that freebsd-stable@ and stable@ are aliases. Yes, kmail is broken and the authors refuse to fix it. It happens on reply to a foo@ e-mail (it changes the 'To' to 'freebsd-foo@' because of the List-Id header and leaves foo@ in the 'CC' field). Note that there isn't anything in the List headers that says that foo@ is an alias for [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just wish I could turn off the List-Id crap and use plain old reply-to-all, but that is where the kmail developers disagree. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Interrupt storm with shared interrupt on digi(4)
I have an on-going problem with DigiBoard Xem boards causing interrupt storms (since 4.x days). The FreeBSD driver polls the board and doesn't have a functional interrupt handler (and Linux behaves in the same way). It seems that under some conditions, the board will assert its interrupt line and, since there's no interrupt handler to clear whatever triggered the interrupt, the IRQ is never unasserted. In the past, I have managed to avoid the problem by putting the Digi card on a dedicated interrupt. For reasons I don't understand, this appears to mask the problem. Unfortunately, I now have a system where, courtesy of Compaq's incompetence, I have no way to avoid having two Digi boards sharing an interrupt. In 7.x, as soon as I load digi.ko, I get interrupt storm messages. In 6.x, I could see the interrupt storm but it didn't flood my console with messages. Does anyone have a patch that will generate an appropriate EOI to a DigiBoard? Alternatively, can anyone suggest how I can disable or mask a specified PCI interrupt? -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. pgpLCexVR8aWD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Interrupt storm with shared interrupt on digi(4)
On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:08:40 am Peter Jeremy wrote: I have an on-going problem with DigiBoard Xem boards causing interrupt storms (since 4.x days). The FreeBSD driver polls the board and doesn't have a functional interrupt handler (and Linux behaves in the same way). It seems that under some conditions, the board will assert its interrupt line and, since there's no interrupt handler to clear whatever triggered the interrupt, the IRQ is never unasserted. In the past, I have managed to avoid the problem by putting the Digi card on a dedicated interrupt. For reasons I don't understand, this appears to mask the problem. That is because we leave interrupts masked until it gets an interrupt handler. Since digi(4) doesn't register a handler, we leave the interrupt masked unless some other device is sharing the same interrupt and registers a handler. Unfortunately, I now have a system where, courtesy of Compaq's incompetence, I have no way to avoid having two Digi boards sharing an interrupt. In 7.x, as soon as I load digi.ko, I get interrupt storm messages. In 6.x, I could see the interrupt storm but it didn't flood my console with messages. Does anyone have a patch that will generate an appropriate EOI to a DigiBoard? No. Even better would be if there was a way to disable interrupt generation in the digi(4) driver via some register. Alternatively, can anyone suggest how I can disable or mask a specified PCI interrupt? The problem is that in this case you have another driver that is using that interrupt, so if you completely mask the interrupt the other driver will stop getting interrupts and likely stop working. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Interrupt storm with shared interrupt on digi(4)
On 2008-Jun-03 10:21:35 -0400, John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the past, I have managed to avoid the problem by putting the Digi card on a dedicated interrupt. For reasons I don't understand, this appears to mask the problem. That is because we leave interrupts masked until it gets an interrupt handler. Since digi(4) doesn't register a handler, we leave the interrupt masked unless some other device is sharing the same interrupt and registers a handler. This is what I assumed but doesn't explain how having two digi boards that share an interrupt with each other but nothing else winds up with an interrupt storm. I will have to investigate further... No. Even better would be if there was a way to disable interrupt generation in the digi(4) driver via some register. Agreed. Unfortunately, the only documentation is the Linux driver and it doesn't appear to initialise the digi board any differently to FreeBSD. Alternatively, can anyone suggest how I can disable or mask a specified PCI interrupt? The problem is that in this case you have another driver that is using that interrupt, so if you completely mask the interrupt the other driver will stop getting interrupts and likely stop working. I agree that this approach is a hack - but it will let me work around the problem on the problematic system. BTW, your MUA's list-reply configuration don't recognize that freebsd-stable@ and stable@ are aliases. -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. pgpyLWG3HRnZl.pgp Description: PGP signature
