From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:31:27 +1100 Message-ID: <1270074687.7101.74.camel@pasglop> References: <20100325194100.GA2364@debian> <20100331134048.da4e35a7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4BB3B4DB.7040904@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:39348 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758259Ab0CaWcj (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:32:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BB3B4DB.7040904@kernel.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Andrew Morton , Rabin Vincent , lkml , hpa@zytor.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, cl@linux-foundation.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:47 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > 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? No, it's not, it will enable IRQs and thats illegal to do so early during boot. We've been over that one again and again, the problem is that people want to keep using that instead of irqsave/restore because it's a nano-optimisation on x86... oh well... Cheers, Ben.