[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PPS parport boot lockup: INFO: HARDIRQ-READ-safe -> HARDIRQ-READ-unsafe lock order detected
В Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:37:34 -0800
Linus Torvalds <> пишет:

> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Alexander Gordeev
> <> wrote:
> >
> > But parport_unregister_device should probably never be called while
> > parport interrupts are enabled (in hardware). So this is a false
> > positive. Is this right?
> "Enabled in hardware" is immaterial - with shared interrupts, it
> doesn't matter one whit whether parport interrupts are disabled on the
> chip, because some other chip may be using the same interrupt line.
> So you'd need to have something that guarantees that there is no
> concurrent use, like actually unregistering the irq handler itself.
> Things like that can work.
> HOWEVER, even then I think you should see the lockdep message as a
> problem. The automated toolchain is great because it shows problems
> that it thinks might happen - not when they happen, but based on a
> simpler theoretical model. Ignoring the error because there is some
> rule in place that is hard to explain to the automated toolchain is
> the wrong thing to do, because it makes the lockdep automation less
> reliable.
> Think of it as a compiler warning - maybe the warning doesn't actually
> imply an actual bug, but you should strive to write code that doesn't
> warn, because otherwise the noise from the warning you ignored will
> make it harder for others to see the _real_ bugs.
> Linus

Ok, thank you very much for clarification!
I'll send the patch as reply to the first e-mail.

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-24 16:03    [W:0.070 / U:8.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site