On 10/13/07, Manfred Spraul <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > I think the scenario you outline is an illustration of the approach's
> > fragility: disable_irq() is a heavy hammer that originated with INTx,
> > and it relies on a chip-specific disable method (kernel/irq/manage.c)
> > that practically guarantees behavior will vary across MSI/INTx/etc.
> >
> I checked the code: IRQ_DISABLE is implemented in software, i.e.
> handle_level_irq() only calls handle_IRQ_event() [and then the nic irq
> handler] if IRQ_DISABLE is not set.
> OTHO: The last trace looks as if nv_do_nic_poll() is interrupted by an irq.
>
> Perhaps something corrupts dev->irq? The irq is requested with
> request_irq(np->pci_dev->irq, handler, IRQF_SHARED, dev->name, dev)
> and disabled with
> disable_irq_lockdep(dev->irq);
>
> Someone around with a MSI capable board? The forcedeth driver does
> dev->irq = pci_dev->irq
> in nv_probe(), especially before pci_enable_msi().
> Does pci_enable_msi() change pci_dev->irq? Then we would disable the
> wrong interrupt....
the request_irq==>setup_irq will make dev->irq = pci_dev->irq.
YH
-
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]
