[I finally got a response a couple of days ago which said that it was
evidently something in patch43 which broke paride].
I took a look at patch 43 to see what changed - it wasn't anything that
I directly did myself, so the best thing to do is to let the people who did
make the change look it over and try to find the fault. If needed I can
certainly help out, of course.
-Eric
----- Original Message -----
From: Erik Inge Bolsų <knan@mo.himolde.no>
To: Eric Youngdale <eric@andante.org>
Cc: Linux-parport mailing list <linux-parport@torque.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: New queueing code
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Eric Youngdale wrote:
> > What kernel version did the problems start to occur? There have been
> >several rounds of changes to the ll_rw_blk code (not all of which I was
> >directly responsible for), and it would help a lot to narrow it down to a
> >specific kernel version. If the primary author of the change in question
> >was someone else, I can help to bring that person into the loop too.
>
> 2.3.40: works
> 2.3.45: broken
>
> I'll try compiling a few intermediate kernels to see if I can track it
> down. It broke in 2.3.41, 42, 43, 44 or 45.
>
> Later,
> Erik
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Erik Inge Bolsų <knan@mo.himolde.no>
> >To: Eric Youngdale <eric@andante.org>
> >Cc: Linux-parport mailing list <linux-parport@torque.net>
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 9:55 AM
> >Subject: Re: New queueing code
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Eric Youngdale wrote:
> >> > Which source files are involved with ParIDE, and what are the
> >symptoms
> >> >of the breakage?
> >> >
> >> >-Eric
> >>
> >> Source files:
> >> drivers/block/paride/*, in particular pd.c, pf.c, pt.c, pcd.c and pg.c.
> >>
> >> Symptoms:
> >> >Did a little more experimenting with EPAT + PD in kernel 2.3.49pre1
> >> >today.
> >> >A log message I got, without taking the computer down with it this
time:
> >> >
> >> >Mar 7 20:03:16 frankenstein kernel: pda: OUCH: b_reqnext != NULL
> >> >Mar 7 20:03:17 frankenstein last message repeated 46 times
> >> >
> >> >A PD bug? Or is that assertion failure the lower-level protocol's
fault?
> >>
> >> (I was later assured this was a symptom of incompatible request queue
> >> changes.)
> >>
> >> >The next time I tried, it panicked, dumped a screenful of traceback
(more
> >> >than 50 lines) that seemed, judging by the addresses, to be in an
> >> >infinite loop. Then the interrupt handler was killed so that I have no
> >> >log of the incident. (Sorry, no serial console to capture such things
> >> >handy)
> >> >
> >> >Sysrq-K in this state caused an immediate reboot.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Erik I. Bolsų <knan at mo.himolde.no> | <eriki at himolde.no>
> >> .. student of IT administration at Molde College, Norway.
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Erik I. Bolsų <knan at mo.himolde.no> | <eriki at himolde.no>
> .. student of IT administration at Molde College, Norway.
>
>
-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: linux-parport-request@torque.net --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 11:50:13 EST