lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.172 / U:2.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site