[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236032722.5330.1675.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:25:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, me@...ipebalbi.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
felipe.balbi@...ia.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
sameo@...nedhand.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...)
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 14:10 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> What's unfortunate is that you prefer not to fix that
> IRQF_DISABLED bug in lockdep, which you co-"maintain".
> When running with lockdep, that bug (a) introduces bugs
> in some drivers and (b) hides bugs in others. You've
> rejected even a minimal warning fix, to help minimize
> the amount of time developers waste on (a) and (b).
I've come to the conclusion that the only technically sound solution is
to do as I proposed today, utterly eliminate !IRQF_DISABLED handlers.
Apparently you had enough time to come up with the creative genirq abuse
of twl4030, I think that with a similar effort you could have
implemented generic threaded irq stuff like proposed by Thomas.
> Attacking folk for having to cope with such bugs escalates
> things beyond "unfortunate". If lockdep is "maintained",
> your response should be fixing that lockdep bug. Once
> that's done, all workarounds for that bug can be removed.
I state there is no lockdep bug in this respect. The bug is trying to
enable interrupts from hardirq context and running code that assumes
hardirq context from task context.
--
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