From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965193AbWEaWAi (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 18:00:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965194AbWEaWAi (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 18:00:38 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:30156 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965193AbWEaWAg (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 18:00:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 00:00:55 +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: <20060531220055.GD4059@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> <20060531214729.GA4059@elte.hu> <1149112582.3114.91.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1149112582.3114.91.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: > > 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? > > I suspect the real solution is to have a > > disable_irq_handler(irq, handler) > > function which does 2 things > 1) disable the irq at the hardware level > 2) mark the handler as "don't call me" > > it matches the semantics here; what these drivers want is 1) not get > an irq handler called and 2) not get an irq flood ok, this would work. But there is a practical problem: only in drivers/* there's 310 disable_irq() calls - each would have to be changed to disable_irq_handler() [and i dont see any good way to automate that conversion] ... Ingo