From: Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@urpla.net>
To: root@chaos.analogic.com, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: spurious 8259A interrupt
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:58:07 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
Cc: Robert_Hentosh@Dell.com, Linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <6C07122052CB7749A391B01A4C66D31E014BEA49@ausx2kmps304.aus.amer.dell.com> <20040319130609.GE2650@mail.shareable.org> <Pine.LNX.4.53.0403190825070.929@chaos>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0403190825070.929@chaos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200403211858.07445.hpj@urpla.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 753
Lines: 21

On Friday 19 March 2004 14:48, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> The IRQ7 spurious is usually an artifact of a crappy motherboard
> design where the CPU "thinks" it was interrupted, but the
> controller didn't wiggle the CPUs INT line.

Thanks for the nice explanation, Richard. 

I even see them on my x86_64 box in 64 bit mode. (K8VT800 based)
Furtunately only occasionally.

I thought, AMD took the chance to fix that kind of crap in the new 
architecture, but obviously they failed in this respect :-(

Pete

-
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/