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

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Alan Stern <stern@...>
Cc: Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@...>, Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Greg KH <greg@...>, SCSI development list <linux-scsi@...>, USB list <linux-usb@...>
Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 4:35 pm

On 2/16/2008 10:35 PM, Alan Stern wrote:



Apparently it was the problem; enabling ACPI has fixed not only the USB
problem but also the network problem (somewhat miraculously, since I'm
quite certain that I had ACPI enabled in a 2.6.23.x kernel where the
network did not work despite an apparently matching driver).

I feel somewhat foolish for having reported a regression over what turns
out to have been a simple misconfiguration, but I still do think it's
somewhat misleading at best for something so potentially important to
completely non-power-related things to be buried under the heading of
power management... I would suggest moving it somewhere else in the
config and the dependencies, except that I have neither a suggestion for
a possible place nor any idea of how much actual work that would
involve.



With those two problems out of the way, what is left is the hard-drive
issue, and that is also halfway fixed by enabling ACPI. Specifically, it
is "fixed" in that the kernel sees the hard drive and I can mount it,
but it is not fixed in that the program we need to use in this
environment does not see the drive.

I have a config from a boot disc running 2.6.5 (that's not a typo) under
which the program in question *does* see the drive, but there are
massive differences between that config and the one I am using now, and
narrowing the critical difference down is likely to be somewhat
difficult - particularly since some of the "differences" are merely
renamed config symbols (i.e. the CONFIG_SCSI_SATA_*->CONFIG_SATA_*
switchover), and I have limited ability to tell which without intensive
investigation. Are there any established techniques for simplifying this
kind of comparison?

-- 
    Andrew Buehler
--
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]*, 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]* - most..., Andrew Buehler, (Tue Feb 19, 4:35 pm)
Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*, Andrew Buehler, (Sun Feb 17, 12:21 pm)