Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1 - output of lock validator

[Ingo Molnar]

* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > This is a serious bug in misrouted_irq().  disable_irq() is a 
> > software state and must be repsected.
> 
> no that is not correct. The api is a mix kinda and broken; it really 
> DOES mean "shut this irq source off". That your handler won't get 
> called is an assumption! You do NOT disable your handler this way. 
> What we really need is a disable_irq_handler() api that does both!

well, the short-term answer is that Herbert's fix is correct and we need 
to do it even if it degrades the efficiency of irqfixup/irqpoll.

after this fix is applied, irqfixup/irqpoll should be enhanced to take 
advantage of disable_irq_handler().

in any case, correctness comes first - not honoring IRQ_DISABLED can 
lead to lockups.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/