[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Disabling an interrupt in the handler locks the system up
On 25/10/2016 10:29, Sebastian Frias wrote:

> On 10/24/2016 06:55 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Mason wrote:
>>> For the record, setting the IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY flag for this device
>>> makes the system lock-up disappear.
>> The way how lazy irq disabling works is:
>> 1) Interrupt is marked disabled in software, but the hardware is not masked
>> 2) If the interrupt fires befor the interrupt is reenabled, then it's
>> masked at the hardware level in the low level interrupt flow handler.
> Would you mind explaining what is the intention behind?
> Because it does not seem obvious why there isn't a direct map between
> "disable_irq*()" and "mask_irq()"

I had a similar, but slightly different question:

What is the difference between struct irq_chip's

* @irq_shutdown: shut down the interrupt (defaults to ->disable if NULL)
* @irq_disable: disable the interrupt
* @irq_mask: mask an interrupt source

(enable seems to default to unmask, but disable does not default to mask)


 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-25 10:37    [W:0.084 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site