[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54739E6D.2010702@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:09:01 +0000
From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
patches@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>,
Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>,
Dmitry Pervushin <dpervushin@...il.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.18-rc3 v8 1/4] irqchip: gic: Make gic_raise_softirq()
FIQ-safe
On 24/11/14 20:41, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> I did want to remove the lock too. However when I reviewed this code I
>> concluded the lock was still required. Without it I think it is possible
>> for gic_raise_softirq() to raise an IPI on the old core *after* the code
>> to migrate pending IPIs has been run.
>
> And I bet it took you quite some time to figure that out from that
> overly documented abuse of irq_controller_lock. See my other reply.
Yes. It did take quite some time, although compared to some of the other
FIQ/NMI-safety reviews I've been doing recently it could be worse. ;-)
--
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