Bug 86217 - Alt-Sysrq handling is inconsistent
Summary: Alt-Sysrq handling is inconsistent
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1
Classification: Red Hat
Component: kernel
Version: 2.1
Hardware: ia64
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Larry Woodman
QA Contact: Brian Brock
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2003-03-17 14:06 UTC by Dave Anderson
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:06 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2005-04-04 17:17:49 UTC
Target Upstream Version:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Dave Anderson 2003-03-17 14:06:27 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-e.3enterprise i686)

Description of problem:
Alt-Sysrq handling on ia64 in general is spotty at best.
Typically upon entering Alt-Sysrq with a supported key,
it displays only the help message, as if an incorrect key
were pressed; then it stays in that mode with any subsequent
key entry, repeating the help message.  Eventually it may/will
"get out" of the loop and perform the request.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Enter Alt-Sysrq-T (or any other supported key)

Actual Results:  The help string is displayed and then repeatedly displays
with subsequent keystrokes:

Sysrq: HELP : loglevl0-8 reBoot tErm kIll saK showMem Off showPc unRaw Sync
showTasks Unmount

Expected Results:  The correct "Sysrq : xxxx" string for the key entered should
be displayed and the command initiated.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2003-03-24 17:12:27 UTC
Out of curiousity - usb keyboard?

Comment 2 Dave Anderson 2003-03-24 17:50:21 UTC
yes, usb...

Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2003-03-24 17:58:32 UTC
Does a USB keyboard on x86 show the same problem for you? I've seen something
similar with a USB keyboard on x86 and sysrq, so I wonder if it's a USB issue
and not an ia64 issue.

Comment 4 Dave Anderson 2003-03-24 18:25:51 UTC
Good question -- we just tried it on one x86 box here, and it worked OK.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.