[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100331210555.GA17715@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:05:55 +0100
From: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, hpa@...or.com,
penberg@...helsinki.fi, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:47:23PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 01:40 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > We have two checks in start_kernel():
> >
> > if (!irqs_disabled()) {
> > printk(KERN_WARNING "start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were "
> > "enabled *very* early, fixing it\n");
> > local_irq_disable();
> > }
> > rcu_init();
> > radix_tree_init();
> > /* init some links before init_ISA_irqs() */
> > early_irq_init();
> > init_IRQ();
> > prio_tree_init();
> > init_timers();
> > hrtimers_init();
> > softirq_init();
> > timekeeping_init();
> > time_init();
> > profile_init();
> > if (!irqs_disabled())
> > printk(KERN_CRIT "start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were "
> > "enabled early\n");
> >
> > perhaps the second one isn't needed? Perhaps no architecture requires
> > that local interrupts be disabled across the above initialisations?
>
> spin_unlock_irq from arm is different from other archs?
We use the standard generic kernel implementation. Is x86 different? ;)
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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