[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200708080712.GC571@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 17:07:12 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Raul Rangel <rrangel@...gle.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"S, Shirish" <Shirish.S@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: UART/TTY console deadlock
On (20/07/08 09:40), Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> I'm not sure how this patch will help with the situation. Because at the
> point of that THRE test the irq handler isn't registered. It's
> registered a few lines below (up->ops->setup_irq()) meaning the irq line
> has to be disabled if shared. Otherwise the kernel might detect a
> spurious irq and disables it. That's at least my understanding of the
> problem (see commit message from 54e53b2e8081 ("tty: serial: 8250: pass
> IRQ shared flag to UART ports")).
So the only remaining approach then is to move
disable_irq_nosync()/enable_irq() out of port->lock
scope.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists