Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Andrew Buehler <abuehler.kernel@...>
Cc: Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Greg KH <greg@...>, <linux-scsi@...>, <linux-usb@...>
Date: Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 7:11 pm

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Andrew Buehler wrote:


Everyone has his own taste.  Obviously there's no world-wide consensus,
possibly because different people have different workflow habits and so
are affected by duplicate messages to varying extents.


Sometimes that is the case but often it isn't.  Your expectations are
at variance with other people's behavior; you shouldn't expect everyone
else to change just to match your personal ideals.

On the other hand, I would be perfectly happy to edit your name out of 
the reply list -- but since you said you aren't receiving all the 
messages in this thread via the list that might not be a good thing to 
do at the moment...



The line saying:


is an indication that interrupt routing is indeed not working right.  
Or possibly your EHCI controller isn't working.  You could try 
blacklisting or unloading ehci-hcd to see if that helps.  Of course 
then none of your USB devices would be able to run at high speed.


Notice that the interrupt count for IRQ 11 doesn't change when you plug 
in the device.  Obviously something is wrong there.

In fact, it's a little surprising that almost all the USB controllers
are routed to the same IRQ.  However this is beyond my area of 
expertise.  You could try posting a message on the linux-acpi mailing 
list; the people there should know a lot more about these issues.



There are some excellent tutorials on the web, with detailed
explanations of how to do a bisection to track down a kernel bug.

Alan Stern

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Andrew Buehler, (Fri Feb 15, 5:45 pm)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Oliver Pinter, (Sat Feb 16, 10:32 am)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Alan Stern, (Sat Feb 16, 11:20 am)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Andrew Buehler, (Sat Feb 16, 12:46 pm)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Paul Jackson, (Sun Feb 17, 3:20 am)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Andrew Buehler, (Sun Feb 17, 12:17 pm)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Paul Jackson, (Sun Feb 17, 12:20 pm)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Andrew Buehler, (Sat Feb 16, 5:33 pm)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Sergey Vlasov, (Sun Feb 17, 6:55 am)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Alan Stern, (Sat Feb 16, 7:11 pm)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Andrew Buehler, (Sat Feb 16, 9:12 pm)
[OT] GMail (was USB regression (and other failures)...), Joseph Fannin, (Sun Feb 17, 12:10 am)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Alan Stern, (Sat Feb 16, 11:35 pm)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Andrew Buehler, (Sun Feb 17, 12:21 pm)