On Sat 2010-04-03 00:51:20, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Pavel, > > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Fri 2010-04-02 22:42:51, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed 2010-03-31 13:16:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not simply force IRQF_DISABLED for all MSI interrupts. That still > > > > > > > allows nesting for non MSI ones, but it limits the chance of throwing > > > > > > > up reasonably well. That's a two liner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please test whether it resolves the issue at hand ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the late answer. Got confirmation that this patch > > > > > > fixes the test case. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I'll push it linus wards and cc stable. I think thats the least > > > > > intrusive safe bet we can have right now. > > > > > > > > stable? I'd say thats way too intrusive for -stable... > > > > > > So we better let the possible stack overruns unaddressed ? > > > > -stable should have no regressions, first and foremost. And this is > > pretty certain to introduce some, at least on low-powered system with > > serial ports. > > I think you misunderstood what I'm going to push. The patch merily > forces IRQF_DISABLED for MSI(X) based interrupts. So that does not > affect low powered systems in any way. > > It only affects high end systems where Dave Miller already said he did > the IRQF_DISABLED magic already in some NIC drivers just to prevent > that. Oops, yes, I did; lost in all the mails. > So I think your fear of regressions for low-powered systems is > completely unsubstantiated. Yep. Sorry for the noise. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html