[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a5b0800811021335nfe6202fwc00681ec96d9816c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 21:35:31 +0000
From: "Will Newton" <will.newton@...il.com>
To: "Matt Fleming" <mjf@...too.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] HPET: Enter hpet_interrupt_handler with interrupts disabled
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Matt Fleming <mjf@...too.org> wrote:
> Some functions that may be called from this handler require that
> interrupts are disabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <mjf@...too.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c b/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
> index f10f946..c28fff2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
> @@ -445,7 +445,8 @@ static int hpet_setup_irq(struct hpet_dev *dev)
> {
>
> if (request_irq(dev->irq, hpet_interrupt_handler,
> - IRQF_SHARED|IRQF_NOBALANCING, dev->name, dev))
> + IRQF_DISABLED|IRQF_SHARED|IRQF_NOBALANCING,
> + dev->name, dev))
Combining IRQF_DISABLED and IRQF_SHARED does not reliably disable
interrupts in the handler. Perhaps IRQF_SHARED should be removed at
the same time?
> return -1;
>
> disable_irq(dev->irq);
> --
> 1.5.6.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists