AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20080303115633.7f7367b8@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<brian.stark@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E089F23D3@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:56:45 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Brian Stark" <brian.stark@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: concrete info on CF status problem
Message-ID: <20080303115645.69f8de4a@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E089F23D3@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <20080225140859.55145d81@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E089F185F@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<20080228162754.3c0479e9@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E089F1902@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<20080228174605.206a0a38@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E089F1971@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<20080228185120.016da30b@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E089F19C5@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<20080228202749.036b8be7@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E089F238B@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<20080303111338.2e074e05@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E089F23D3@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yeah, you can dream!  It wasn't a kernel bug either, so I'm off the
hook.  Thank goodness, too, because that's a lot of donuts.

Of course, lunch any time ~:^)

BTW, further testing might seem to indicate that the pcmciautils config
file is not the issue I thought it was.  I set that file back to its
original contents, and things are still working as they should be.
More testing ....


On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:30:23 -0800 "Brian Stark"
<brian.stark@onstor.com> wrote:

> You're da man!
> 
> Since this wasn't a hardware issue, I'll let you know what I decide
> the spoils of the bet are.  I don't think a million donuts will do,
> but I'm thinking I'll choose something that's somewhere between a
> lunch and a new shiny Mac notebook...
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Sharp 
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:14 AM
> > To: Brian Stark
> > Subject: Re: concrete info on CF status problem
> > 
> > Yeah, I found the issue on Friday.  There was no issue.  Or, 
> > to put it another way, it may have been working when I was up 
> > there in the lab.
> > But apparently Max made some change to /etc/sysctl.conf which 
> > stopped the kernel from outputting messages with a level 
> > lower than WARNING (which would be INFO and NOTICE) so my 
> > printfs were being surpressed.
> > <Bastard!>
> > 
> > So that is part 1 of the problem.  Part 2 is that the package 
> > pcmciautils was not being installed properly ("Laaareee!?") 
> > and may have somehow convinced the kernel to deregister the 
> > 1520 device.  I would have bet a cop a million donuts that 
> > you couldn't do that without the devices above that being 
> > deregistered as well, not to mention the pcmcia stuff should 
> > probably have stopped working entirely, but I'm still doing 
> > testing to validate this theory.
> > 
> > Anyway, when I fixed the pcmciautils configuration file and 
> > turned back on kernel messages, it worked as expected on my 
> > cougar.  The exact fix is still a WIP.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > a
> > 
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:02:11 -0800 "Brian Stark"
> > <brian.stark@onstor.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Any updates on this?  Of course, I'm hoping that you've found and 
> > > fixed the issue...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Andy Sharp
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:28 PM
> > > > To: Brian Stark
> > > > Cc: Warren Gale
> > > > Subject: Re: concrete info on CF status problem
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:54:27 -0800 "Brian Stark"
> > > > <brian.stark@onstor.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > You've sapped all my energy, so I'm taking tomorrow off.  
> > > > I'll have to
> > > > > miss the ice cream social tomorrow.  Darn it.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah, too bad.  You're going to miss out, because I've 
> > already picked 
> > > > up a case of Jack Daniels to bring to the ICS tomorrow, 
> > along with a 
> > > > fresh batch of grenades. Should be very interesting.
> > > > 
> > > > > Seriously, I might have to be at home in the afternoon
> > > > tomorrow, so I
> > > > > won't be coming down to Campbell.  I'll be in Pleasanton in
> > > > > the morning and will happily eject the CF to your heart's
> > > > content.  I gave
> > > > > you the terminal info, so just let me know if you want me
> > > > to do this.  
> > > > > If we don't figure it out tomorrow, then I'll bring the
> > > > system down to
> > > > > Campbell on Monday (again).
> > > > 
> > > > I'm dying to get after this, it's the only non-ignorable 
> > bug on my 
> > > > list, and I've fixed all the ignorable ones anyway.  I think
> > > > I'll head up to P-town in the morning.
> > > > 
> > > > > I look forward to winning the bet.  Then again, no matter
> > > > > what happens, I'm sure we'll never admit it was either a
> > > > > kernel
> > > > or hardware
> > > > > bug. We'll somehow conclude it was a PROM bug and blame it on 
> > > > > Rick.
> > > > 
> > > > Well duh.  I mean, wait, Rick who?  Actually I think the answer
> > > > is clear: there is no bug because there couldn't be.  QA 
> > "sees things" 
> > > > all the time, it's obviously just another one of those.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Andy Sharp
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:51 PM
> > > > > > To: Brian Stark
> > > > > > Cc: Warren Gale
> > > > > > Subject: Re: concrete info on CF status problem
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:51:50 -0800 "Brian Stark"
> > > > > > <brian.stark@onstor.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Andy Sharp
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 5:46 PM
> > > > > > > > To: Brian Stark
> > > > > > > > Cc: Warren Gale
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: concrete info on CF status problem
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:51:10 -0800 "Brian Stark"
> > > > > > > > <brian.stark@onstor.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > No, I see nothing.  This is not a board problem -- the
> > > > > > interrupt
> > > > > > > > > is firing and something is then reading the status
> > > > reg in the
> > > > > > > > > 1520.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > That's OK, I recognize your denial and it's only human, 
> > > > > > > > after all.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Good one.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thangyouverymuch.  I'm here all week.  Until the Ice cream 
> > > > > > social (wtf?) tomorrow, that is.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I've tried your old Rev 2 board, a Rev 3 board, and a
> > > > > > Rev 4 board.
> > > > > > > > > Plus, I can show you the diffs in the netlists 
> > between Rev
> > > > > > > > 2 - Rev 4,
> > > > > > > > > and there's nothing in the hardware that's changed
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > any of the
> > > > > > > > > connections between CF, 1520, and 1125.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > What about the 1520 itself?  Different rev, different
> > > > part no.,
> > > > > > > > different supplier, different version? Just because
> > > > > > nothing changed
> > > > > > > > in the netlists doesn't rule out something not right
> > > > > > > > with the way they were built.  Or if we switched to a
> > > > > > > > slightly
> > > > different
> > > > > > > > part that's RoHS compatible or something.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Nope, the 1520 is sole-sourced to TI and it hasn't 
> > changed in 
> > > > > > > eons. Nice try.  It ain't the 1520 or the board -- the 
> > > > > > > interrupt
> > > > > > is firing
> > > > > > > to the 1125 and then the status reg is read.  I think I
> > > > > > need to draw
> > > > > > > you a picture.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Damn, you're right, its most likely a kernel bug.  It 
> > obviously 
> > > > > > means nothing that between PROM, software and 
> > hardware, it's the 
> > > > > > only thing that hasn't changed in months.
> > > > > > Because it couldn't be a hardware issue, despite that 
> > this all 
> > > > > > started on the affected systems immediately after 
> > they had their 
> > > > > > boards replaced.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On a serious side, can my old board be set up in the 
> > lab here in 
> > > > > > Camphell tomorrow?  Are you or someone coming here 
> > tomorrow?  I 
> > > > > > assume so, you guys couldn't be contemplating missing the
> > > > > > ICS.
> > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > 
