Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> Hm, I don't think it is unhappy about looking at NV_INT_STATUS_CK804.
> I'm running 2.6.20-rc5 with the INT_DEV check removed for 8 hours now
> without a single problem and that should still look at
> NV_INT_STATUS_CK804, right?
> I just noticed that my last email might not have been clear enough. The
> exceptions happened when I re-enabled the return statement in addition
> to the debug message. Without the INT_DEV check, it is completely fine
> AFAICT.

Indeed, it seems to be just the NV_INT_DEV check that is problematic. 
Here's a patch that's likely better to test, it forces the NV_INT_DEV 
flag on when a command is active, and also fixes that questionable code 
in nv_host_intr that I mentioned.

-- 
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/