From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: random moving of cursor arrow Message-ID: <20030728072659.B1666@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <012c01c3528e$f861d2a0$b9844051@insultant.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from David Presotto on Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 10:22:10PM -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 07:26:59 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 066353b4-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 10:22:10PM -0400, David Presotto wrote: > > I'll bang at serial ports tomorrow and see if I can figure out what's happening. > With modern machines, I shouldn't get overruns even without the fifo. I used > to avoid the fifo for mice because it made the mouse jerky. > Note that (in my recollection) the problem is more recent than the switch to the new driver. I have only recently migrated to an Intellimouse and then only on my workstation and the impression I get is that there has been a slowdown in the very recent past. It would be difficult for me to test this, but if we come up with no other option, I can set up a test bench. > Everything related has changed of course; uart driver, clock routine, and > scheduler. Any could be at fault. I'll plug some machines back to back and > see if I can cause overruns. A mouse really shouldn't be able to though, > it's only 9600 baud or less. If we're missing, something is really > screwed up. We only use ps2 mice these days but I can scrounge up some > serial ones. > I have only examined the actual driver. I couldn't see anything clearly suspicious in it. > It is true that if the mouse is misidentified, it will cause exactly the > behavior babic is seeing, i.e., if it guesses the wrong protocol. Yes, but then echo i1 > /dev/eia0ctl wouldn't have any ameliorating effect on it. ++L