From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261662AbUL0Bkt (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:40:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261681AbUL0Bkt (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:40:49 -0500 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.196]:25590 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261662AbUL0Bkp (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:40:45 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=rTkWrXAHvjp3MfDbW6D5B+fDsnTF4IB1oSui0+0y1uBK96D4WBgSIFHBBy8rZwHbljOzAjIafI6EG/yDHEqu79BpYI8n+W1OVjnTi5V8lXT19w2RNV4Txl/MSQdjlKO3tiOBe3Ya0T0/2KtY0hGdoTAbl9isG46p9PWhkFyouvM= Message-ID: <58cb370e041226174019e75e23@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 02:40:45 +0100 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Reply-To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Andreas Steinmetz Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.10-ac1 Cc: Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <41CF649E.20409@domdv.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1104103881.16545.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <58cb370e04122616577e1bd33@mail.gmail.com> <41CF649E.20409@domdv.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 02:25:50 +0100, Andreas Steinmetz wrote: > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > What do you need 'serialize' option for? > > I didn't check if the problem is gone with 2.6.10 but there's boards > like my tyan 2885 which do need the serialize option to work properly > for add-on ide controllers. > > From the X86-64 patch release notes of Andi Kleen: > > Reports that dual Tyan S2885 and S2880 can lock up when multiple IDE > channels are stressed in parallel. "noapic" or "ideX=serialize" seems to > work around it. Andre Hedrick thinks it's a generic bug/race in the IDE > code. > > Do you want to force people to disable the io-apic just because of > option removal? In my case the serialized devices are a disk and a > dvd-rw which is rarely used, so disabling the io-apic is a bad solution. No, I want them to fix the problem - whenever it is - ide or apic code. :)