From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758521AbYDOISx (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:18:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759385AbYDOIST (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:18:19 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:45020 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756525AbYDOISR (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:18:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:17:44 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Andrew Morton , "Eric W. Biederman" , Thomas Gleixner , Jeff Garzik , Ayaz Abdulla , LKML , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: regression caused by: genirq: do not leave interupts enabled on free_irq Message-ID: <20080415081744.GB19452@elte.hu> References: <86802c440804102313k4546cd73s7bffb30a14239472@mail.gmail.com> <86802c440804110014j44b32d16ubfaa0f327c3a384f@mail.gmail.com> <86802c440804110017y62938d90x7e3e32df25a60d1@mail.gmail.com> <1207899030.15605.1.camel@x61.ebiederm.org> <86802c440804111122x5c106779g60f1c04ae21fed94@mail.gmail.com> <86802c440804111248je6dfa99va8eec42531f4b689@mail.gmail.com> <20080415004400.bb941191.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <86802c440804150103s59f6fe16ncf08a3154c03d2bb@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86802c440804150103s59f6fe16ncf08a3154c03d2bb@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Yinghai Lu wrote: > > Do we think it's a bug in the RHEL 5.1 kernel? Even so, that's a > > problem for the 2.6.25 kernel. > > it is RHEL 5.1 kernel problem, it has code for maskbit with msi there, > but that does work... addendum - basically the argument is: we should kexec conservatively - i.e. we should leave as few assumptions and hw changes around as possible. So restoring the MSI state is fair enough as a robustness fix, even though only kexec to older kernels is affected. clearly 2.6.26 material, not 2.6.25. Ingo