Re: [patch, -rc5-mm1] locking validator: special rule: 8390.cdisable_irq()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 22:26 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Sul, 2006-06-04 am 12:22 -0400, ysgrifennodd Steven Rostedt:
> > But can't this machine still cause an interrupt storm if the interrupt
> > comes on a wrong line, and we don't call the handler for the interrupt
> > source because we are now honoring disable_irq?
> 
> Yes - that is why we can't honour disable_irq in this case but have to
> hope 8)
> 

Hmm, maybe this can be solved with something like what the -rt patch
does with threading interrupts and the interrupt mask.  I'm not
suggesting threading interrupts.  But, if the misrouted irq comes across
a disabled_irq, that it sets some flag, and doesn't unmask the interrupt
when finished.  Have enable_irq see the flag and have it unmask the
interrupt if it is safe to do so.

This all may be pretty hacky, but it's trying to fix code for hardware
that is already hacky.  Note, that this would need to be compiled in as
on option to actually implement any of this crap.

-- Steve


-
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/