From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754450Ab2LFMXp (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 07:23:45 -0500 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:51664 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751419Ab2LFMXo (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 07:23:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:23:40 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Edward Donovan cc: "Wang, Warner" , "Wang, Song-Bo (Stoney)" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: need help on a DEADLOCK problem related to function try_one_irq() In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ed, On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Edward Donovan wrote: > So, let me try to confirm some things now, so I can learn as I go. To > spell out what's in the new patch: > > The later line, > > action = desc->action; > > should have been this all along? > > action = action->next; Yes. My bad :( > And with that fixed, the other test can go. Which is good, now, > because it was creating locking problems for you. > > Ok, thanks for bearing with me. I'll repeat the test here, some > more, but they've generally behaved consistently and probably will > keep showing the same. > > I might as well add that I would happily ship one of these computers, > with a reliably spurious interrupt, to Thomas in Germany. if that > would help for testing. I'm always happy to have machines which expose strange symptoms. Thanks, tglx