From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sf84@laposte.net (Sebastian Frias)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:29:27 +0200
Subject: Disabling an interrupt in the handler locks the system up
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610241847580.5002@nanos>
References: <580A4460.2090306@free.fr>
 <a79e2d2c-8ec8-744f-50fb-8c39216aa23e@arm.com> <580A60ED.3030307@free.fr>
 <20161021201448.3f4a0a7a@arm.com> <580A70B9.8060507@free.fr>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610212147420.4855@nanos> <580A7A2B.5000702@free.fr>
 <20161022123713.6dc788b3@arm.com> <580BF1D4.2030509@free.fr>
 <580E3308.4050507@free.fr> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610241847580.5002@nanos>
Message-ID: <580F17E7.5060603@laposte.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Thomas,

On 10/24/2016 06:55 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Mason wrote:
>>
>> For the record, setting the IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY flag for this device
>> makes the system lock-up disappear.
> 
> The way how lazy irq disabling works is:
> 
> 1) Interrupt is marked disabled in software, but the hardware is not masked
> 
> 2) If the interrupt fires befor the interrupt is reenabled, then it's
>    masked at the hardware level in the low level interrupt flow handler.
> 

Would you mind explaining what is the intention behind?
Because it does not seem obvious why there isn't a direct map between
"disable_irq*()" and "mask_irq()"

Thanks in advance.
Best regards,

Sebastian