Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261412AbUKSOLS (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:11:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261419AbUKSOLS (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:11:18 -0500 Received: from bgm-24-95-139-53.stny.rr.com ([24.95.139.53]:43172 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261412AbUKSOLN (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:11:13 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.10-rc2-mm2-V0.7.29-0 From: Steven Rostedt To: Ingo Molnar Cc: LKML In-Reply-To: <20041119100541.GA28243@elte.hu> References: <20041109160544.GA28242@elte.hu> <20041111144414.GA8881@elte.hu> <20041111215122.GA5885@elte.hu> <20041116125402.GA9258@elte.hu> <20041116130946.GA11053@elte.hu> <20041116134027.GA13360@elte.hu> <20041117124234.GA25956@elte.hu> <20041118123521.GA29091@elte.hu> <20041118164612.GA17040@elte.hu> <419D13D3.8020409@stud.feec.vutbr.cz> <20041119100541.GA28243@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Kihon Technologies Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:11:12 -0500 Message-Id: <1100873472.4051.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1213 Lines: 29 I'm getting a bug print (really a warning) from enable_irq spawned from the e100 driver. The reason is that enable_irq is being called because the irq depth is zero. Looking into this, it is because the e100 uses a shared interrupt. On setup (see drivers/net/e100.c: e100_up) it disables the irq that it will use, and then calls request_irq which calls setup_irq which zeros out the depth of the irq if it is not shared. So if the e100 is the first to be loaded, then you get this message. I know that for now this doesn't hurt anything, but besides annoying me in my print outs (I can't stop panicking when I see it ;-), is this really a bug and thus a design flaw of the e100? How else can a shared irq initialize without turning off the irq before setting itself up? Should it enable the irq before it requests it, and thus open the race of a spurious interrupt, or just disable all interrupts? Thanks, -- Steven Rostedt Senior Engineer Kihon Technologies - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/