Hi Mark,

in message <Pine.SGI.3.95.970126015001.14073A-100000@physig4.ph.kcl.ac.uk>
          Mark Brinicombe <amb@physig.ph.kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> > The ibuf overflows are gone now as expected but I have some silo overflows
> Hopefully these should be occuring at a much lower rate. SILO overflows

Yes they do.

> > soft error reading [or writing] fsbn 864 of 864-867" and the like.
> > What is a soft error anyway?
> 
> Interrupt latency again ;-) These occur when the driver does not keep up
> with the interrupt rate from the floppy drive. I need to clarify whether
> this is just IRQ latency or FIQ latency as well as the fd driver uses
> FIQ's for the actual data transfer.
> 
> Currently SA110 kernels will suffer for more interrupt latency problems
> than voyager kernels and will do so until I improve the SA110 cache
> cleaning code (coming shortly).

Good as I've ordered a StrongARM card now and I already feared this bug would
remain unfixed if I stopped whining about it. ;-)

> > I have not had any disk related problems (apart from the usual vnode
> > corruption problem) although I did a lot of compiling (kernel and
> > ghostscript 4.02) with this kernel.
> 
> This is nice to hear ;-)

It's also astonishing, isn't it? Normally every new thing brings in its own
personal bugs. ;-)

> As soon as I sort a few other things out I think I need a brainstorming
> session on the lpt driver ;-)

OK you know the history, do you?
It used to work a long time ago, I think before you optimized the interrupt
delivery code. It then used to crash the kernel into the debugger showing about
three dozens of dosoftints() in the trace.
Since the interrupt bugfix recently it completely locks the kernel.
So I'm pretty sure it's also a problem with interrupts.

> > Thanks for the good work, this is a noticable improvement.
> 
> A happy user, thats what I like to see ;-))))
> 
> Hopefully some more goodies should be coming soon.

Not for long, there are always some more problems I can complain about. ;-)

So long, Markus