Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756754AbZCBWZ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:25:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752686AbZCBWZr (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:25:47 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:55413 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751208AbZCBWZq (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:25:46 -0500 Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...) From: Peter Zijlstra To: David Brownell Cc: Andrew Morton , me@felipebalbi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, felipe.balbi@nokia.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, sameo@openedhand.com, tglx@linutronix.de In-Reply-To: <200903021410.25889.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <1235762883-20870-1-git-send-email-me@felipebalbi.com> <200902271518.58246.david-b@pacbell.net> <1235999770.5330.367.camel@laptop> <200903021410.25889.david-b@pacbell.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:25:22 +0100 Message-Id: <1236032722.5330.1675.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.25.91 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1398 Lines: 30 On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 14:10 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > What's unfortunate is that you prefer not to fix that > IRQF_DISABLED bug in lockdep, which you co-"maintain". > When running with lockdep, that bug (a) introduces bugs > in some drivers and (b) hides bugs in others. You've > rejected even a minimal warning fix, to help minimize > the amount of time developers waste on (a) and (b). I've come to the conclusion that the only technically sound solution is to do as I proposed today, utterly eliminate !IRQF_DISABLED handlers. Apparently you had enough time to come up with the creative genirq abuse of twl4030, I think that with a similar effort you could have implemented generic threaded irq stuff like proposed by Thomas. > Attacking folk for having to cope with such bugs escalates > things beyond "unfortunate". If lockdep is "maintained", > your response should be fixing that lockdep bug. Once > that's done, all workarounds for that bug can be removed. I state there is no lockdep bug in this respect. The bug is trying to enable interrupts from hardirq context and running code that assumes hardirq context from task context. -- 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/