On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2017, Gregory Fong wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> I noticed that when you changed arm irq handling to use the generic
>> implementation back in 2006 that you changed do_bad_IRQ() to the
>> following:
>>
>> +#define do_bad_IRQ(irq,desc,regs) \
>> +do { \
>> + spin_lock(&desc->lock); \
>> + handle_bad_irq(irq, desc, regs); \
>> + spin_unlock(&desc->lock); \
>> +} while(0)
>>
>> and it's mostly stayed the same since then. As such, there are a few
>> examples of this being open-coded in the kernel in various irqchip
>> handlers such as that of drivers/irqchip/irq-brcmstb-l2.c, and even
>> more cases where the lock isn't being grabbed before calling
>> handle_bad_irq().
>>
>> Since handle_bad_irq() is sort of a flow handler like
>> handle_edge_irq() etc., do you think it would make sense to do the
>> same as those and have it do the locking on its own? A quick look
>> through existing users of handle_bad_irq() at [1] suggests that either
>> the locking isn't necessary or it's almost always done wrong.
>
> Right. So the proper solution to this is to create a generic function
>
> handle_bad_irq_desc()
>
> have proper locking in it and move all users (including do_bad_IRQ()) over
> to it.
I'm guessing the different name would be to avoid breaking existing
users. Wouldn't it be better to just add locking in handle_bad_irq(),
simultaneously removing the lock/unlock around in its invocations in
the few places where that was actually done? There aren't any
existing builtin IRQ flow handlers that end in "_desc".
Otherwise I'll move forward with implementing handle_bad_irq_desc()
and updating existing users.
Thanks,
Gregory
