[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004022242170.32352@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 22:42:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] genirq: Run irq handlers with interrupts disabled
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2010-03-31 13:16:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > > > Why not simply force IRQF_DISABLED for all MSI interrupts. That still
> > > > allows nesting for non MSI ones, but it limits the chance of throwing
> > > > up reasonably well. That's a two liner.
> > > >
> > > > Can you please test whether it resolves the issue at hand ?
> > >
> > > Sorry for the late answer. Got confirmation that this patch
> > > fixes the test case. Thanks.
> >
> > Ok, I'll push it linus wards and cc stable. I think thats the least
> > intrusive safe bet we can have right now.
>
> stable? I'd say thats way too intrusive for -stable...
So we better let the possible stack overruns unaddressed ?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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