From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932314Ab2JVXQ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:16:56 -0400 Received: from p3plsmtps2ded04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([208.109.80.198]:48062 "EHLO p3plsmtps2ded04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932102Ab2JVXQz (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:16:55 -0400 x-originating-ip: 72.167.245.219 From: "K. Y. Srinivasan" To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@linuxdriverproject.org, olaf@aepfle.de, apw@canonical.com, jasowang@redhat.com Subject: 3.7 RC1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:37:45 -0700 Message-Id: <1350949065-24655-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.4.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org While testing 3.7 RC1 I discovered that invoking the function orderly_poweroff() from an interrupt context will trigger an ASSERT(). This was not the case till recently. The comment preceding the orderly_poweroff() function claims that this function can be invoked from any context and in the current Hyper-V util driver, we support host-driven orderly shut down of the guest by invoking this orderly_poweroff() function in the context of the message callback. This code has been working for a very long time and it is broken now. Is my assumption that orderly_poweroff() could be invoked from the interrupt context a wrong assumption? Regards, K. Y