[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090415100105.GC6669@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:01:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
garyhade@...ibm.com, lcm@...ibm.com, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] irq: correct CPUMASKS_OFFSTACK typo -v2
* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:41:55 -0700
> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > irq
>
> Speaking of which, could someone please take a look at
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1060580?do=post_view_threaded#1060580
> ?
[...]
> But try_one_irq() is running tifm_7xx1_isr() with local interrupts
> enabled, which upsets lockdep.
It doesnt just upset lockdep, it could also cause real lockups.
Lockdep is just the canary, the lockup is the methane explosion.
> But I suspect that the code as it stands is non-buggy. Unless the
> interrupt can magically come back to life. In which case any
> change we make is purely a make-lockdep-shut-up thing.
Hm, i'd suggest we go for the methane leak instead of squashing the
canary. Which in this case would be try_one_irq() ignoring
IRQF_DISABLED or so? Affecting (much) more ISRs than just
tifm_7xx1_isr()?
Thomas?
Ingo
--
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