* Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-17 15:05]: > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 04:05:15PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote: > > * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-08 19:18]: > > > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:19:32AM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote: > > > > * Vivek Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-30 10:48]: > > > > > > > > > > handle_edge_irq() already makes sure that desc->action is not null, > > > > > still > > > > > note_interrupt() is receiving desc->action as null, that's strange. > > > > > On my > > > > > system this is happening for irq 4 and /proc/interrupt shows that it > > > > > is > > > > > coming from "serial". > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I couldn't reproduce this here. Vivek, do you have time > > > > to take a look at this at your site? For the meanwhile, should I > > > > create a patch that checks for desc->action in note_interrupt(), too? > > > > > > I can reproduce this problem only on one machine. I think there is some > > > race condition and your code somehow just exposes it. > > > > thanks for finding that out. Could you try/review out the patch below? > > As the lock is only aquired when irqfixup == 2 it shouldn't impact > > performance of a 'normal' system. > > It does fix up my problem. I have modified your patch a bit. I think > new version is little more clear. What do you think?
Aggreed. Thanks for spotting that problem out! Bernhard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/