Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...)

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 18:37 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> No.  But I did get a non-response that didn't include any
> explanation, and relied totally on unfounded assertions
> combined with the presumption that someday IRQF_DISABLED
> will be forced on in all drivers.

Enabling IRQs in hardirq context is BAD because:

 - IRQ handler nesting leads to stack overflow
 - It gives the false impression its OK for IRQ handlers to be slow,
   it is _NOT_, as you still generate horrible preemption latency.

Therefore IRQF_DISABLED _will_ be forced on everybody some day soon, and
I'll provide an IRQF_ENABLED for use by broken hardware only (and make a
TAINT flag for that too).



--
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/