Does this one-liner make any difference?
Basically, I'm looking for differences in interrupt-masking
behaviour for UP+PIO from 2.2.13 to 2.2.14pre15, and this
on-liner is one of the few. Maybe the right one.
The rationale for this approach is that we *know* that "hdparm -u1"
fixes the problem, so we know it's something to do with unmasking
a little too much in some cases that triggers it.
And your scenario is really simple -- single drive on a single interface,
no IRQ multiplexing or anything weird (other than your old hardware).
Thanks
-- Mark Lord Real-Time Remedies Inc. mlord@pobox.com --------------5BF8B0E3355B5A05F031CB8F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="ide-2.2.14pre15.try1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ide-2.2.14pre15.try1"--- linux-2.2.14pre15ac+/drivers/block/ide.c.orig Sun Dec 19 17:11:35 1999 +++ linux/drivers/block/ide.c Tue Dec 21 16:55:27 1999 @@ -1250,6 +1250,7 @@ ide_hwif_t *hwif; ide_startstop_t startstop; + __cli(); /* local CPU only */ ide_get_lock(&ide_lock, ide_intr, hwgroup); /* for atari only: POSSIBLY BROKEN HERE(?) */ while (!hwgroup->busy) {
--------------5BF8B0E3355B5A05F031CB8F--
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/