> Would anyone have any problems with code that simply verified that the
> state which we are restoring allowed interrupts to get to the processor
> that we are currently crashing on and if not, poked in a reasonable value.
Sounds reasonable by itself.
>
> Yes this would add some complexity to the code paths where we were
> crashing but it could prevent the problem that we are seeing. It seems
> like a small fairly safe change rather than a big disruptive change like
> moving the initialization of the IOAPIC earlier in the boot process.
But longer (or not so long) term moving the IOAPIC earlier is the better option,
simply because the short use of PIC mode traditionally was a source of problems
on a lot of boxes.
And it does not really make sense to keep this source of trouble just for a short
time during boot when we could as well go directly into IO-APIC mode. This would
probably also match what other OS are doing better and that is always a good idea
for stable operation.
-Andi
-
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]
