Re: [BUG somewhere] 2.6.0-test8 irq.c, IRQ_INPROGRESS ?

[Mikael Pettersson]

Linus Torvalds writes:
 > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, M.H.VanLeeuwen wrote:
 > > 
 > > I'm seeing an NMI Watchdog detected LOCKUP go away when I revert this patch
 > > previously added into test8.
 > 
 > Yes, the thing is buggy. 
 > 
 > It's not correct for "disable_irq_nosync()" users, and reverting it is the 
 > right thing to do. Thanks for the report.
 > 
 > Marcelo, please note if you played with this in 2.4.x..
 > 
 > 		Linus
 > 
 > ------
 > > diff -Nru a/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c b/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c
 > > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c    Fri Oct 17 14:43:50 2003
 > > +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c    Fri Oct 17 14:43:50 2003
 > > @@ -378,7 +380,7 @@
 > >         spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags);
 > >         switch (desc->depth) {
 > >         case 1: {
 > > -               unsigned int status = desc->status & ~IRQ_DISABLED;
 > > +               unsigned int status = desc->status & ~(IRQ_DISABLED | IRQ_INPROGRESS);

It seems 2.4.23-pre8 included something like this apparently broken
change (see diff from -pre7 below). Should it be reverted?

--- linux-2.4.23-pre7/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c	2003-10-23 13:17:43.700067608 +0200
+++ linux-2.4.23-pre8/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c	2003-10-23 13:17:10.071202512 +0200
@@ -1036,7 +1036,7 @@
 
 	if (!shared) {
 		desc->depth = 0;
-		desc->status &= ~(IRQ_DISABLED | IRQ_AUTODETECT | IRQ_WAITING);
+		desc->status &= ~(IRQ_DISABLED | IRQ_AUTODETECT | IRQ_WAITING | IRQ_INPROGRESS);
 		desc->handler->startup(irq);
 	}
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock,flags);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/