On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
> : > Going off on a tangent, I'm getting a lot fewer "hwptr went backwards"
> : > with the latest -CURRENT than I used to...
> :
> : Which soundcard?
>
> sbc0: at port 0x220-0x22f,0x388-0x38b,0x320-0x3
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: > Going off on a tangent, I'm getting a lot fewer "hwptr went backwards"
: > with the latest -CURRENT than I used to...
:
: Which soundcard?
I get them on
sbc0: at port 0x220-0x22f,0x388-0x38b,0x320-0x321 irq 5 drq 1,5 on isa0
pcm0: on sbc
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 09-Jan-01 Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > Going off on a tangent, I'm getting a lot fewer "hwptr went backwards"
> > with the latest -CURRENT than I used to...
> Which soundcard?
SoundBlaster Vibra 16X.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 04:11:16PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
> > Going off on a tangent, I'm getting a lot fewer "hwptr went backwards"
> > with the latest -CURRENT than I used to...
>
> Which soundcard?
SB 64 AWE ISA PNP... almost no hwptr... messages any more and sound is no
longer popping un
On 09-Jan-01 Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No, this is either a problem reading the i8254 timecounter reliably
>> or an interrupt latency problem.
>
> Given that this is -CURRENT, interrupt latency is a likely
> explanation...
>
> Going off on a t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No, this is either a problem reading the i8254 timecounter reliably
>> or an interrupt latency problem.
>
>Given that this is -CURRENT, interrupt latency is a likely
>explanation...
>
>Goi
Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, this is either a problem reading the i8254 timecounter reliably
> or an interrupt latency problem.
Given that this is -CURRENT, interrupt latency is a likely
explanation...
Going off on a tangent, I'm getting a lot fewer "hwptr went backwards"
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
>I regularly get "microuptime() went backwards" warnings on my desktop
>box. The funny thing about them is that the reported timevals have the
>same seconds part, but the microseconds part of the second timeval is
>so large that it's wrap
I regularly get "microuptime() went backwards" warnings on my desktop
box. The funny thing about them is that the reported timevals have the
same seconds part, but the microseconds part of the second timeval is
so large that it's wrapped around to a negative number (causing the
signed comparison t
