Re: PATCH: 2.6.10 - Misrouted IRQ recovery for review

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Tuesday 28 December 2004 01:53 pm, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:50:40 -0500
> Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Please look at the patch below (handful of arches only and against
> > some old tree, but you'll see what I wanted to do). What I meant
> > by changing the semantics is that reporting is delayed by 1 interrupt.
> 
> This looks exactly like what I was looking for.  I think I misunderstood
> your original description, which is why it is always best to communicate
> ideas using patches :)
> 
> My misunderstanding what that I thought that your flag would work
> like this:
> 
> 1) input interrupt occurs, flag is set
> 2) IRQ handling completes
> 3) some new IRQ arrives, and this is when we test
>    the flag for dumping sysrq regs
> 
> That, fortunately, is not what your patch is doing.

Well, it kind of does... I mean if register dump is somehow requested 
from outside of interrupt context then you'll get dump of the next hard
IRQ. The same goes for softirqs I guess.
  
-- 
Dmitry
-
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/