On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> hm. Last time around I pointed out that we should be checking that all
> handlers for this IRQ agree about the percpuness. What happened to
> that?
Maybe simply add this patch on top?
Index: linux-2.6.16-rc6-mm2/kernel/irq/manage.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.16-rc6-mm2.orig/kernel/irq/manage.c 2006-03-21 15:41:26.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc6-mm2/kernel/irq/manage.c 2006-03-21 15:43:15.000000000 -0800
@@ -204,6 +204,8 @@ int setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct i
#if defined(ARCH_HAS_IRQ_PER_CPU) && defined(SA_PERCPU_IRQ)
if (new->flags & SA_PERCPU_IRQ)
desc->status |= IRQ_PER_CPU;
+ else
+ BUG_ON(desc->status & IRQ_PER_CPU);
#endif
p = &desc->action;
if ((old = *p) != NULL) {
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
