Re: [PATCH 1/1] 8250_kgdb driver reworked

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 10:57:54PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > +static irqreturn_t
> > +kgdb8250_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > +	char iir;
> > +
> > +	if (irq != KGDB8250_IRQ)
> > +		return IRQ_NONE;
> 
> How can this occur - you gave the IRQ number in the register_irq. WHy
> test for it, and if it occurs why not BUG()

Early sanity tests, dropped.

> > +	/*
> > +	 * If  there is some other CPU in KGDB then this is a
> > +	 * spurious interrupt. so return without even checking a byte
> > +	 */
> > +	if (atomic_read(&debugger_active))
> > +		return IRQ_NONE;
> > +
> 
> Shared IRQ -> hung box. 

Can you elaborate a bit more please?  When we're actually in KGDB and
working on stuff we're polling so it's really just the
GDB-is-interrupting case.

> Also lose the ugly confusing macros like CURRENTPORT please to follow
> kernel style better. In fact why not keep a pointer to the 'current'
> uart to get tighter code too ?

Sure, why not.

-- 
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
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/