* Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is a serious bug in misrouted_irq(). disable_irq() is a
> > software state and must be repsected.
>
> no that is not correct. The api is a mix kinda and broken; it really
> DOES mean "shut this irq source off". That your handler won't get
> called is an assumption! You do NOT disable your handler this way.
> What we really need is a disable_irq_handler() api that does both!
well, the short-term answer is that Herbert's fix is correct and we need
to do it even if it degrades the efficiency of irqfixup/irqpoll.
after this fix is applied, irqfixup/irqpoll should be enhanced to take
advantage of disable_irq_handler().
in any case, correctness comes first - not honoring IRQ_DISABLED can
lead to lockups.
Ingo
-
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]
