From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:37:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:37:03 -0400 Received: from vasquez.zip.com.au ([203.12.97.41]:11538 "EHLO vasquez.zip.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:36:50 -0400 Message-ID: <3BD0AA3A.D3C61F0D@zip.com.au> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:33:30 -0700 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.12-ac3 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse CC: lkml , David Hinds Subject: Re: [patch] ip autoconfig for PCMCIA NICs In-Reply-To: <3BD092A6.26A1CFE9@zip.com.au>, <3BD092A6.26A1CFE9@zip.com.au> <29471.1003530166@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Woodhouse wrote: > > akpm@zip.com.au said: > > Also, yenta_open() currently defers device initialisation to keventd, > > so there is a good chance that cardbus init hasn't completed by the > > time we hit ip autoconf, so the yenta_open_bh functionality is made > > synchronous. > > That was async at Linus' request - if we register the irq early, some > boards die in an interrupt storm. Linux is currently fairly crap at > noticing and recovering from interrupt storms. > So any change in this area is untestable in the 2.4 context. Sigh. But how can the current code prevent IRQ problems? AFAICT it just delays the yenta_open_bh() operations by a short-but-random time interval. Should the IRQ be registered _after_ the call to cardbus_register() when, presumably, the hardware is set up and has negated the IRQ signal? -