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

Re: (Solved): Re: recompiling kernel and ppp



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Kevin Conover wrote:


kcppp>When I first came up with 2.0.0, I tested the modem with minicom before
kcppp>attempting PPP.  No problem.  After compiling the new kernel, I didn't test
kcppp>minicom.  I compiled the kernel a dozen times, sometimes using modules,
kcppp>sometimes not, etc.  I kept getting "kernel doesn't support ppp".  Well,
kcppp>while using 2.0.20, I decided to back up a step or 3 and try minicom.
kcppp>"Device /dev/cua1 is busy".  Ah ha!  After some playing and investigating,
kcppp>it turns out that xringd (which I need for something else but I'm currently
kcppp>not using) is grabbing the modem and not sharing nicely.  If I stop xringd,
kcppp>PPP works great first time, every time, my chat scripts, etc, everything
kcppp>was OK.  I use xringd and "kernel doesn't support ppp" (probably not the
kcppp>most intuitive error message ;-).  Once things calm down a bit I'll e-mail
kcppp>the author of xringd and see if this is a known problem.  It might just be
kcppp>kernel specific, or I need to recompile it and didn't know.  I don't need
kcppp>it for a while so I'm not sweating it yet.

well... about xringd. I think u can't monitor the modem or any other device
without locking it. So the best solution is just add "killall xringd" or
somthing to u're ppp script and start it over in up-down.
I am sure u don't need xringd when u are in connect.
i could be wrong.
borik

___
Boris Beletsky <borik@isracom.co.il>
For pgp public key, e-mail me 
with subject "get pgp-key."
___
In Linux veritas


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia+
Charset: latin1
Comment: Boris Beletsky <borik@isracom.co.il>

iQCVAwUBMkBfQQz8DjY6pgpxAQF0RgQAv+rJz9L98LcGutbCdcE5iczNzA1K+F18
Pb7im/M58CNTtZJEq8VCIEk+bSEAkgte9Up6l6XNGNAM/qhyFLuPBEWI1WWWqNn5
Pocc6Ayu8xwhHIQqNDTDTj85PelKeX+J5YvIWTtQxWeUkl6aojXwnI3qiijjZ5XO
OG1VEwCmvzM=
=tYo7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: