On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 08:31 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Without having looked at it very hard, I'd venture that this is a
> > false positive - that driver uses disable_irq() to prevent reentry
> > onto that lock.
>
> correct.
>
> > It does that because it knows it's about to spend a long time talking
> > with the mii registers and it doesn't want to do that with interrupts
> > disabled.
>
> i still consider it a 'quirky' locking construct, because disabling
> interrupts for a long time also disables all other devices sharing the
> same IRQ line - not nice.
>
> Also, this is a really hard case for lockdep to detect automatically.
> (fortunately it's also relatively rare)
What's the standard way to teach lockdep about this?
>
> OTOH, the straightforward lockdep workaround would be to take the
> spinlock and thus disable all local interrupts - not too nice either.
>
> Albeit in some ways it's still a bit nicer conceptually than disabling
> the irq line, because other CPUs are still operational, and under
> certain locking designs [preempt-rt] spin_lock_irq() does not disable
> local interrupts.
>
> Steve, can you think of any better solution? I dont have this card.
Until this popped up, I didn't know I had this card either ;)
(the last time we dealt with this card was to help someone else)
Anyway, I'll look into the way this card works and start to play with it
when I get some time.
Andrew, do you have any docs that I can read to understand the card a
little better?
Thanks,
-- Steve
-
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]
