On 10/02/18 14:20, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Calling request_irq() followed by disable_irq() is usually a bad idea, > specially if the interrupt can be pending, and you're not yet in a > position to handle it. > > This is exactly what happens on my kevin system when rebooting in a > second kernel using kexec: Some interrupt is left pending from > the previous kernel, and we take it too early, before disable_irq() > could do anything. > > A better way of ensuring safety is to set the IRQ_NOAUTOEN flag > on the irq before requesting it. > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> For the record, I've posted a (much) improved version of this as part of a series here[1]. Thanks, M. [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-February/560703.html -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
