Messages in this thread | | | From | Dmitry Torokhov <> | Subject | Re: PATCH: 2.6.10 - Misrouted IRQ recovery for review | Date | Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:21:49 -0500 |
| |
On Tuesday 28 December 2004 01:53 pm, David S. Miller wrote: > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:50:40 -0500 > Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > Please look at the patch below (handful of arches only and against > > some old tree, but you'll see what I wanted to do). What I meant > > by changing the semantics is that reporting is delayed by 1 interrupt. > > This looks exactly like what I was looking for. I think I misunderstood > your original description, which is why it is always best to communicate > ideas using patches :) > > My misunderstanding what that I thought that your flag would work > like this: > > 1) input interrupt occurs, flag is set > 2) IRQ handling completes > 3) some new IRQ arrives, and this is when we test > the flag for dumping sysrq regs > > That, fortunately, is not what your patch is doing.
Well, it kind of does... I mean if register dump is somehow requested from outside of interrupt context then you'll get dump of the next hard IRQ. The same goes for softirqs I guess.
-- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |