From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965182AbWEaVrP (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 17:47:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965183AbWEaVrP (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 17:47:15 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:19896 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965182AbWEaVrO (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 17:47:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 23:47:29 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch, -rc5-mm1] locking validator: special rule: 8390.c disable_irq() Message-ID: <20060531214729.GA4059@elte.hu> References: <20060531200236.GA31619@elte.hu> <1149107500.3114.75.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060531214139.GA8196@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1149111838.3114.87.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1149111838.3114.87.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -3.1 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-3.1 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 17:41 -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:31:40PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > 8390.c knows that ei_local->page_lock can only be used by an irq > > > > context that it disabled - > > > > > > btw I think this is no longer correct with the irq polling stuff Alan > > > added to the kernel recently... > > > > We could make the misrouted IRQ logic skip all handlers on a disabled IRQ > > but that might actually be worse than the disease we are trying to cure by > > doing so. > > yeah since misrouted irqs will cause the kernel do disable irqs 'at > random' more or less .. for which the handlers now would become > unreachable which isn't good. couldnt most of these problems be avoided by tracking whether a handler _ever_ returned a success status? That means that irqpoll could safely poll handlers for which we know that they somehow arent yet matched up to any IRQ line? Ingo