From: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net>
Reply-To: gene.heskett@verizon.net
To: gene.heskett@verizon.net, "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 ver# extra configure info CONFIGURE_ARGS += --disable-debug --enable-final --with-java=/usr/java/j2re1.4.1sions of include/linux/ioport.h
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:07:00 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <200308051041.08078.gene.heskett@verizon.net> <20030805084533.3b0fd474.rddunlap@osdl.org> <200308051508.19363.gene.heskett@verizon.net>
In-Reply-To: <200308051508.19363.gene.heskett@verizon.net>
Organization: None that appears to be detectable by casual observers
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200308051807.00179.gene.heskett@verizon.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 6157
Lines: 144

On Tuesday 05 August 2003 15:08, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Tuesday 05 August 2003 11:45, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:22:35 -0400 Gene Heskett
>
><gene.heskett@verizon.net> wrote:
>>| On Tuesday 05 August 2003 10:57, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>>| >On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:41:08 -0400 Gene Heskett
>>|
>>| <gene.heskett@verizon.net> wrote:
>>| >| ----
>>| >| First, the define itself is missing in the 2.6 version.
>>| >|
>>| >| Many drivers seem to use this call, and in that which I'm
>>| >| trying to build, the nforce and advansys modules use it.  And
>>| >| while the modules seem to build, they do not run properly.
>>| >|
>>| >| I cannot run 2.6.x for extended tests because of the advansys
>>| >| breakage this causes.  I also haven't even tried to run X
>>| >| because of the nforce error reported when its built, the same
>>| >| error as attacks the advansys code.
>>| >|
>>| >| Can I ask why this change was made, and is there a suitable
>>| >| replacement call available that these drivers could use
>>| >| instead of check_region(), as shown here in a snip from
>>| >| advansys.c? ----
>>| >| if (check_region(iop, ASC_IOADR_GAP) != 0) {
>>| >| ...
>>| >| if (check_region(iop_base, ASC_IOADR_GAP) != 0) {
>>| >| ...
>>| >|
>>| >| Hopeing for some hints here.
>>| >
>>| >check_region() was racy.  Use request_region() instead.
>>| >
>>| >   if (!request_region(iop, ASC_IOADR_GAP, "advansys")) {
>>| >   ...
>>| >
>>| >   if (!request_region(iop_base, ASC_IOADR, "advansys")) {
>>| >   ...
>>| >
>>| >Of course, if successful, this assigns the region to the driver,
>>| >while check_region() didn't do this, so release_region() should
>>| > be used as needed to return the resources.
>>|
>>| Oops... I have a test compile going that changed those to
>>| check_mem_region.  And while I didn't change the i2c stuff, which
>>| still reports the error, advansys.o built w/o error this time.
>>|
>>| Ok, so I can change that to !request_region, but I have NDI when
>>| to go about releasing it, if ever, for a kernel driver thats
>>| either there, and the hardware is used, or not because the
>>| hardware isn't present.
>>
>>release_region() is already done for the normal case.
>>It needs to be added for the error cases in advansys_detect()
>>[wow, what a long function].
>>For your kernel(s) and known hardware, it may not be much of an
>>issue.  However, the in-kernel driver needs to be repaired, but
>>it seems that not many people have the hardware...
>>
>>| It seems to me that if its allocated to this driver, and capable
>>| of being re-used at anytime, then the allocation should, once
>>| made, stand.
>>
>>Yes, request_region() should keep the region assigned until the
>> driver is exiting (unloading).  release_region() is already done
>> in advansys_release().
>>
>>| Or is my view of the world skewed and it should be done at
>>| the bottom of whatever conditional is involved?  Inquiring minds
>>| want to know.  I guess it all depends on what happens if the call
>>| is repeated.  Will it assign a new buffer each time?, thereby
>>| causeing a memory leak, or will it find its been done once and
>>| return success anyway?
>>
>>advansys_detect() should call release_region() if it encounters
>> errors [after it has called request_region() and returns an
>> error].
>>
>>request_region() doesn't assign buffers, it allocates IO resources,
>>as seen in /proc/ioports or /proc/iomem.  I don't know what happens
>>on repeated calls by the same driver|module, but in general a
>> second call will fail if the region is already allocated.
>>
>>--
>>~Randy
>
>All that code is loosely bundled under the heading of advansys_init,
>and from the useage of a header constant in the code to control the
>"for (i = CONSTANT" loop above it, would appear to be looped 11
>times.  Thats not the correct syntax of course, but you get the idea
>I hope.
>
>I've built it that way now, without any errors, so its time to go
> fire up a weed eater acording to the missus, and I'll do a test
> reboot later tonight just for any grins it might generate.  I also
> took all the i2c stuff out, and might try building that once I'm
> rebooted, but I think a name change was made from "modversions" in
> the
>lib/modules/version tree, so that will probably fail until I fix the
>&^%$@() makefile.
>
>I'll let you know how it goes later.  Many thanks for the help, I
>figured I was dead and would have to go buy a (spit) adaptec card.

Yeah, I know, its poor form to answer ones own posts, but here goes...

I built it as a module, rebooted to it, modprobed it in without 
incident, exercised it a bit too, so I changed the CONFIG_ADVANSYS 
from an m to a y and rebuilt it again while booted to 
2.6.0-test2(-mm2? dunno), then rebooted again.  I watched the memory 
with top, but the compile ate far more unused ram, as did setiathome, 
than the driver seemed to be useing so I couldn't tell if I have a 
leak or not.

Is there a utility for watching a given device drivers memory useage?

Now, the factory nvidia drivers will not build for 2.6, so I don't 
have any X.  Whats the status of the kernel versions vis-a-vis 
running a gforce2 MMX 32 megger?  I did run them for a while but the 
OpenGL stuff was missing.  If I can get that going, then lm_sensors 
is next.  I think.  In the meantime I'll see if I can figure out how 
to run a diff and submit it.  At this point, the diff will be against 
the 3.3GJ driver in the 2.4 kernel unless someone has some 
objections???

Many Thanks for the hand holding Randy, it was much appreciated.  
Sometimes I've been said to be vapor locked, needing a little choking 
to get me started. ;-)

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

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