Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early

[Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:47:23PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 01:40 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > We have two checks in start_kernel():
> > 
> > 	if (!irqs_disabled()) {
> > 		printk(KERN_WARNING "start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were "
> > 				"enabled *very* early, fixing it\n");
> > 		local_irq_disable();
> > 	}
> > 	rcu_init();
> > 	radix_tree_init();
> > 	/* init some links before init_ISA_irqs() */
> > 	early_irq_init();
> > 	init_IRQ();
> > 	prio_tree_init();
> > 	init_timers();
> > 	hrtimers_init();
> > 	softirq_init();
> > 	timekeeping_init();
> > 	time_init();
> > 	profile_init();
> > 	if (!irqs_disabled())
> > 		printk(KERN_CRIT "start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were "
> > 				 "enabled early\n");
> > 
> > perhaps the second one isn't needed?  Perhaps no architecture requires
> > that local interrupts be disabled across the above initialisations?
> 	
> spin_unlock_irq from arm is different from other archs?

We use the standard generic kernel implementation.  Is x86 different? ;)

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of: