All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: johan@kernel.org (Johan Hovold)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: remove redundant irq disable at halt and restart
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:28:45 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141024192845.GC19377@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141024192111.GC11455@saruman>

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:21:11PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:16:27PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:06:32PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > Remove redundant local_irq_disable() at machine halt and restart.
> > > 
> > > Since commit 44424c34049f ("ARM: 7803/1: Fix deadlock scenario with
> > > smp_send_stop()") interrupts are disabled before stopping secondary
> > > CPUs.
> > 
> > Assuming this is correct, you should have:
> > 
> > Fixes: 44424c3 (ARM: 7803/1: Fix deadlock scenario with smp_send_stop())
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v3.12+

It's not a bug. Just a redundant disabling of already disabled
interrupts, something which could possibly lead someone to believe that
interrupts could be re-enabled by the power-off handler.

And if that was the case, wouldn't that introduce the bug that
44424c34049f ("ARM: 7803/1: Fix deadlock scenario with smp_send_stop()")
was trying to fix?

> > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/kernel/process.c | 2 --
> > >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > > index a35f6ebbd2c2..5663ab57cf07 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > > @@ -195,7 +195,6 @@ void machine_halt(void)
> > >  	local_irq_disable();
> > >  	smp_send_stop();
> > >  
> > > -	local_irq_disable();
> > >  	while (1);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > @@ -237,7 +236,6 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd)
> > >  
> > >  	/* Whoops - the platform was unable to reboot. Tell the user! */
> > >  	printk("Reboot failed -- System halted\n");
> > > -	local_irq_disable();
> > 
> > ... but wouldn't this reintroduce the the buck which that commit fixed ?
> 
> s/buck/bug :-) my fingers have a mind of their own, aparently.

:)

No, the interrupts would still be disabled.

Thanks,
Johan

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: remove redundant irq disable at halt and restart
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:28:45 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141024192845.GC19377@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141024192111.GC11455@saruman>

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:21:11PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:16:27PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:06:32PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > Remove redundant local_irq_disable() at machine halt and restart.
> > > 
> > > Since commit 44424c34049f ("ARM: 7803/1: Fix deadlock scenario with
> > > smp_send_stop()") interrupts are disabled before stopping secondary
> > > CPUs.
> > 
> > Assuming this is correct, you should have:
> > 
> > Fixes: 44424c3 (ARM: 7803/1: Fix deadlock scenario with smp_send_stop())
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v3.12+

It's not a bug. Just a redundant disabling of already disabled
interrupts, something which could possibly lead someone to believe that
interrupts could be re-enabled by the power-off handler.

And if that was the case, wouldn't that introduce the bug that
44424c34049f ("ARM: 7803/1: Fix deadlock scenario with smp_send_stop()")
was trying to fix?

> > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/kernel/process.c | 2 --
> > >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > > index a35f6ebbd2c2..5663ab57cf07 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > > @@ -195,7 +195,6 @@ void machine_halt(void)
> > >  	local_irq_disable();
> > >  	smp_send_stop();
> > >  
> > > -	local_irq_disable();
> > >  	while (1);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > @@ -237,7 +236,6 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd)
> > >  
> > >  	/* Whoops - the platform was unable to reboot. Tell the user! */
> > >  	printk("Reboot failed -- System halted\n");
> > > -	local_irq_disable();
> > 
> > ... but wouldn't this reintroduce the the buck which that commit fixed ?
> 
> s/buck/bug :-) my fingers have a mind of their own, aparently.

:)

No, the interrupts would still be disabled.

Thanks,
Johan

  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-24 19:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-24 19:06 [PATCH] ARM: remove redundant irq disable at halt and restart Johan Hovold
2014-10-24 19:06 ` Johan Hovold
2014-10-24 19:16 ` Felipe Balbi
2014-10-24 19:16   ` Felipe Balbi
2014-10-24 19:21   ` Felipe Balbi
2014-10-24 19:21     ` Felipe Balbi
2014-10-24 19:28     ` Johan Hovold [this message]
2014-10-24 19:28       ` Johan Hovold
2014-10-24 19:42       ` Felipe Balbi
2014-10-24 19:42         ` Felipe Balbi
2014-10-24 19:50         ` Johan Hovold
2014-10-24 19:50           ` Johan Hovold
2014-10-24 20:07           ` Felipe Balbi
2014-10-24 20:07             ` Felipe Balbi
2014-11-26 15:13 ` Johan Hovold
2014-11-26 15:13   ` Johan Hovold

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20141024192845.GC19377@localhost \
    --to=johan@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.