Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Jul 1998 17:36:53 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: Strange interrupt behaviour |
| |
On Sun, Jul 12, 1998 at 05:26:03PM +0200, Alan Cox wrote: > > Unfortunately the interrupt stack more or less requires the indirect > > current scheme, because otherwise current could not be accessed inside > > interrupt handlers (the interrupt entry routine would just copy current > > to the bottom of the irq stack) > > "Current" is not meaningful in an interrupt handler anyway. In fact it > would be nice to arrange that "current" faulted on an IRQ.
The problem is smp_processor_id(). It is one of the first functions evaluated in the interrupt entry code, and it is - surprise, surprise - defined as (current->processor). I have not checked whether there are other interactions like this in e.g. the spinlock code too.
-Andi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |