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

[Steven Rostedt]

On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 11:38 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:16:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > that had its irq misrouted, couldn't it cause a storm if we don't call
> > the handler for it?  So really disable_irq is broken for the misrouting
> > case, and perhaps needs to be replaced with a spin_lock_irqsave?
> 
> For the ne2k at least that simply is not possible, the latencies are so
> bad that you start dropping serial characters and the like if you do.
> 
> The disease is not as bad as the cure..
> 

Forgive me on my ignorance of misrouted irqs.  I really don't understand
when and why they happen.

But my question still stands (maybe because I don't understand). If we
don't call the handler of the misrouted irq because if disable_irq,
can't we still get an interrupt storm?

-- 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/