On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:03:44 +0200 (CEST), Thomas Gleixner
> <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >> Am Donnerstag 21 Oktober 2010, 21:45:35 schrieb Thomas Gleixner:
> >> > Why shold it solve it ? irq_enable is set to compat_irq_enable which
> >> > in turn calls chip->enable.
> >> >
> >> > So how's that different ?
> >>
> >> I took a closer look on the issue.
> >>
> >> check_irq_resend() gets called before irq_chip_set_defaults().
> >> In the first call to check_irq_resend() desc->irq_data.chip->irq_enable is
> >> NULL. UML dies due to a NULL-pointer dereference...
> >>
> >> I don't know why check_irq_resend() is called before irq_chip_set_defaults().
> >> It's your code. ;-)
> >
> > Well, but it only gets called via enable_irq(). So that means
> > something is calling enable_irq _before_ request/setup_irq().
> >
> > arch/um/kernel/irq.c:init_IRQ() does that :)
>
> Sorry I'm not very familiar with the IRQ stuff.
> Does that mean init_IRQ() is not allowed to call enable_irq()?
Well, nothing is supposed to call enable_irq() before an interrupt is
installed with request_irq() or setup_irq().
Patch below should fix your problem.
Thanks,
tglx
---
diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/irq.c b/arch/um/kernel/irq.c
index a746e30..6abc1af 100644
--- a/arch/um/kernel/irq.c
+++ b/arch/um/kernel/irq.c
@@ -395,7 +395,6 @@ void __init init_IRQ(void)
irq_desc[TIMER_IRQ].action = NULL;
irq_desc[TIMER_IRQ].depth = 1;
irq_desc[TIMER_IRQ].chip = &SIGVTALRM_irq_type;
- enable_irq(TIMER_IRQ);
for (i = 1; i < NR_IRQS; i++) {
irq_desc[i].status = IRQ_DISABLED;
irq_desc[i].action = NULL;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
