From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10374] New: sym53c8xx: weird behavior with udev Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:11:55 -0500 Message-ID: <1207059115.3100.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20080401011518.eb683cff.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:55534 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755481AbYDAOL7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:11:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080401011518.eb683cff.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, seraph@xs4all.nl On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 01:15 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > (switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the > bugzilla web interface). > > Steps to reproduce: > > > > Let udev load sym53c8xx in kernel 2.6.23 or newer. > > urgh. Perhaps it's related to platform IRQ routing or something. > > I'd suggest that the next step would be to send us the `dmesg -s 1000000' > output for both good and bad kernels. A comparison might show where things > went bad. Yes, that would be my guess too ... although I don't see anything amiss in the dmesg I note you have two ethernet interfaces: eth0: Sun GEM (PCI) 10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet 00:03:ba:08:61:7c eth1394: eth1: IPv4 over IEEE 1394 (fw-host0) I'm assuming eth0 is the problem? Could you also send us the output of /proc/interrupts, /proc/iomem and /proc/ioports just to see if we have a problem. Also, if eth0 is on its own interrupt line, does the interrupt count rise even while the interface is non functional? Thanks, James