On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Julien Thierry wrote:
+/**
+ * disable_nmi_nosync - disable an nmi without waiting
+ * @irq: Interrupt to disable
+ *
+ * Disable the selected interrupt line. Disables and enables are
+ * nested.
+ * The interrupt to disable must have been requested through request_nmi.
+ * Unlike disable_nmi(), this function does not ensure existing
+ * instances of the IRQ handler have completed before returning.
+ */
+void disable_nmi_nosync(unsigned int irq)
+{
+ disable_irq_nosync(irq);
+}
+
+/**
+ * disable_nmi - disable an nmi and wait for completion
+ * @irq: Interrupt to disable
+ *
+ * Disable the selected interrupt line. Enables and disables are
+ * nested.
+ * The interrupt to disable must have been requested through request_nmi.
+ * This function waits for any pending IRQ handlers for this interrupt
+ * to complete before returning. If you use this function while
+ * holding a resource the IRQ handler may need you will deadlock.
I don't see how that wait would work with NMIs.
+/* This function must be called with desc->lock held */
+static const void *__cleanup_nmi(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc)
+{
+ const char *devname = NULL;
+
+ desc->istate &= ~IRQS_NMI;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ if (WARN_ON(desc->affinity_notify))
+ desc->affinity_notify = NULL;
+#endif
We should not support that affinity notify horror for NMIs at all.
+ if (!WARN_ON(desc->action == NULL)) {
+ irq_pm_remove_action(desc, desc->action);
+ devname = desc->action->name;
+ unregister_handler_proc(irq, desc->action);
+
+ kfree(desc->action);
+ desc->action = NULL;
+ }
+
+ irq_settings_clr_disable_unlazy(desc);
+ irq_shutdown(desc);
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ /* make sure affinity_hint is cleaned up */
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(desc->affinity_hint))
+ desc->affinity_hint = NULL;
+#endif
Especially not twice :)