Re: PATCH: 2.6.10 - Misrouted IRQ recovery for review

[David S. Miller]

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:28:27 -0500
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From what I saw the only thing that presently uses pt_rergs is SysRq
> handler to print the call trace and if we slightly change the semantics
> (instead of printing the trace immediately raise a flag and when next
> interrupt arrives check it in do_IRQ and print the trace from there -
> I even had some patches) we could drop pt_regs. I would very much like
> to do so at least for input drivers.

Are you going to take a snapshot at IRQ time?  If not, then I'm
pretty much against this change.  When I do a sysrq regs dump,
I want the exact pt_regs values at interrupt time, not some
random value later in time.

Perhaps instead you could raise a flag in the input driver, and
at the top-level interrupt dispatch arch code do the register
sysrq dump.  This gives the same semantics as present, and also
allows you what you want for the input drivers.

But, even with this, there is the x86 interrupt handler Alan
mentioned which wants the pt_regs too.
-
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/