From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Hancock Subject: Re: Possibly SATA related freeze killed networking and RAID Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:03:22 -0600 Message-ID: <474F534A.2010500@shaw.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca ([24.71.223.10]:46674 "EHLO pd3mo1so.prod.shaw.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756215AbXK3AD1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:03:27 -0500 In-reply-to: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Phillip Susi Cc: Tejun Heo , Pavel Machek , Alan Cox , noah , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Phillip Susi wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: >> Agreed. Nobody cared on ATA controllers is usually very effective at >> taking the whole machine down. Is there any reason why we don't turn on >> irqpoll on turned off IRQs automatically? > > Why does a single spurious interrupt cause it to be shut down? I can > see if the interrupt is stuck on and keeps interrupting constantly, but > if it's just the occasional spurious interrupt, why not just ignore it > and move on? I'm not certain offhand, but I think there may be such a threshold. However, an occasional spurious interrupt isn't likely. For a level-triggered interrupt, an unhandled interrupt will keep interrupting forever since nobody knows how to clear it (until we decide to disable the IRQ entirely). -- Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/