Re: Going Crazy Here ... PLEASE help ...

SrfRoG (srfrog@nema.com)
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:38:26 +0000 ( )


On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Nicholas J. Leon wrote:

> Ok, here's the situation. I had 2.1.125 & pcmcia-cs-3.0.6-10-Nov running
> just perfect on my Dell Inspiron 3000. My 3c575_cs worked like a charm as
> did my modem card.
>
> Then I decided to try out 2.1.129pre2. Compiled, booted and my ethernet
> started spewing tons of
>
> eth0: transmit timeout, tx_status 00 status e602
> eth0: interrupt posted but not delivered -- IRQ blocked by another device?
> ......
>
> So, I mentally shrugged and booted back in to 2.1.125.
>
> Now 2.1.125 displays the same issues. I've recompiled the kernel,
> recompiled pcmcia utils, pulled out my cards, put them back in, cold
> booted, warmed boot, booted into win95, booted back and things still don't
> work.
>
> There is _ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE_ that I changed in my system. Just
> booted into 2.1.129pre2 and booted back. That's it.
>
> I've tried everything that my little mind has come up with. I've
> recompiled all the tools multiple times, slimmed down my kernel to the
> bare minimum, checked my bios, /etc/pcmcia/config* and other files.
> Everything is identical to how it was before the fateful 129pre2 boot.
>
> Booting into Win98 and using the card works just fine. No problem. Boot
> back into Linux and do ANYTHING that fills up the tx buffer and boom.
>
> Occasionally, I'll also get "in task swapper, cannot sync". Which causes a
> fatal oops.
>
> Let me reiterate: SIMPLY BOOTING INTO 2.1.129pre2 caused this problem.
> I've been working with computers for 20 years, linux since 0.99 and I know
> what I'm doing. But this has me baffled beyond expectations.
>
> This is now my fourth post on this subject to the various lists and I have
> yet to get any responses.
>
> The terrible thing is that I had acquired this laptop for my company to
> test the possibility of using Linux+ssh for secure remote access to our
> private network. I have to give an answer to me boss by the end of the
> week. If I cannot get this resolved, I'm going to have to do what I REALLY
> DON'T want to: suggest Win95+Fsecure. I was ALL SET to give a positive
> report until this little situation occured.
>
> Please help. Any suggestions are welcome. Any comments are welcome. Any
> additional information is available.
>
> G'day!
>
> -- n i c h o l a s j l e o n
> / elegance through simplicity /
> / good fortune through truth / http://mrnick.binary9.net
> / not all questions have answers / mailto:nicholas@binary9.net
>

A wise man once said:
"Never fix what isn't broken unless you want to break it."

If you know what you were doing, should know the kernel 2.1.x versions
are in constant flux. They are "development" versions, not for production
use - yet.

Best suggestion: "rm -rf /usr/src/linux", download 2.1.125 and compile
a fresh kernel.

Better suggestion: stick with 2.0.36 for now.

Best regards,

--
SrfRoG <srfrog@nema.com> | http://www.mistik.net

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/