lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 1 Jun 2006 10:33:14 +0200
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1 - output of lock validator

* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:

> > This is a serious bug in misrouted_irq(). disable_irq() is a
> > software state and must be repsected.
>
> no that is not correct. The api is a mix kinda and broken; it really
> DOES mean "shut this irq source off". That your handler won't get
> called is an assumption! You do NOT disable your handler this way.
> What we really need is a disable_irq_handler() api that does both!

well, the short-term answer is that Herbert's fix is correct and we need
to do it even if it degrades the efficiency of irqfixup/irqpoll.

after this fix is applied, irqfixup/irqpoll should be enhanced to take
advantage of disable_irq_handler().

in any case, correctness comes first - not honoring IRQ_DISABLED can
lead to lockups.

Ingo
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-01 10:36    [from the cache]
©2003-2010