Re: [PATCH] uio/gen-pci: don't enable interrupts in ISR

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 02:15:07AM +0200, Hans J. Koch wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 12:04:13AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 10:46:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > As reported by Anthony in a short way:
> > > 
> > > |irq 17 handler uio_interrupt+0x0/0x68 enabled interrupts
> > > |NIP [c0069d84] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x260/0x26c
> > > 
> > > The problem here is that spin_unlock_irq() enables the interrupts which
> > > is a no-no in interrupt context because they always run with interrupts
> > > disabled. This is the case even if IRQF_DISABLED has not been specified
> > > since v2.6.35. Therefore this patch uses simple spin_locks().
> > > 
> > > Looking at it further here is only one spot where the lock is hold. So
> > > giving the fact that an ISR is not reentrant and is not executed on two
> > > cpus at the same time why do we need a lock here?
> > 
> > I'm not sure anymore. I think the idea was to use
> > it for synchronization down the road somehow,
> > but it never materialized. Let's drop that lock completely.
> 
> That sounds reasonable.
> 
> > 
> > > The driver lacks of ->irqcontrol function so I guess the interrupt is
> > > enabled via direct PCI-access in userland.
> > 
> > Through sysfs.
> 
> How? With /sys/devices/pci.../enable ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Hans

No. By writing to the command register using
/sys/bus/pci/devices/.../config

--
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/