[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "spurious 8259A interrupt: IRQ7."



Marc Wilson wrote:
> Daniel B. wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > Daniel B. wrote:
> > > >   Oct 18 20:29:30 dsb kernel: spurious 8259A interrupt: IRQ7.
> > > Just ignore it.  It basically means that you do not have anything
> > > connected to the parallel port.
> > That obviously can't be right--I have a working printer attached to 
> > the parallel port.

Hmm...  I only see the messages on machines without anything
connected.  On machines with printers on the parallel port I never see
that message.  I had been assuming it had something to do with MOS
circuits (as opposed to the original TTL totem pole logic) floating
just enough after a power up reset that they were asserting the
interrupt line in a bogus manor and assuming that having a real
something on the port kept the wire deasserted.  But I guess that
argument could be used both ways.

> It isn't right.  What it means is that an interrupt was asserted, but by
> the time the hardware got around to telling the CPU, it wasn't there any
> more.  IRQ7 is the lowest priority interrupt, and that's where the service
> routine ends up.

That isn't right either.  IRQ7 is not the lowest priority interrupt
and neither do routines just end up there.  At least we are both
posting what appears to be bogus information.  :-)

Basically the 8259A is the interrupt controller used in PCs since the
first IBM XT.  The IRQ7 line was asserted.  The PIC generated the CPU
interrupt.  The CPU interupt service routine looked for something
registered to service IRQ7 and found nothing registered.  So it listed
the interrupt as spurious and went, "nothing to see here, move along".

The linux kernel mailing list archives are filled with discussion of
this problem.  It has the usual 'net cycle of reappearing every few
months.  Even so it is not (yet) in the FAQ and no definitive guides
exist that I am aware of to deal with it.  There appears to be a trend
that people think it might be associated with various network card
drivers.  But that does not seem right to me.

> It's harmless.

At least we are agreed on that.  :-)  It is harmless.  Ignore it.

Bob

Attachment: pgpmcgK3Onpu0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: