[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A05DFB3@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:11:50 +0000
From: "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
To: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH] x86_fixup_irqs: Fix possible missing interrupt handle when
disabling CPU
From: liu chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH] x86_fixup_irqs: Fix possible missing interrupt handle when disabling CPU
When preparing to unmask the irq in fixup_irqs(), using irqd_irq_masked()
as the condition to determine if do real unmasking action or not.
Because in some chips, the .irq_disable is NULL, so calling disable_irq()
does not mean the irq is masked immediately, and before enable_irq() if
the irq is coming, it can be pending state. Using irqd_irq_disabled() will
lose this chance.
Signed-off-by: liu chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/irq.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
index 6c0802e..b9dd37f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
set_affinity = 0;
if (!irqd_can_move_in_process_context(data) &&
- !irqd_irq_disabled(data) && chip->irq_unmask)
+ !irqd_irq_masked(data) && chip->irq_unmask)
chip->irq_unmask(data);
raw_spin_unlock(&desc->lock);
--
1.7.0.4
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists