Should I queue this up or do you want to do something differently for
this?
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:55:21 +1000
Ben Nizette <bn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> disable_irq() should wait for all running handlers to complete
> before returning. As such, if it's used to disable an interrupt
> from that interrupt's handler it will deadlock. This replaces
> the dangerous instances with the _nosync() variant which doesn't
> have this problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Nizette <bn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/omap.c b/drivers/mmc/host/omap.c
> index 5570849..d5ea652 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/omap.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/omap.c
> @@ -824,7 +824,7 @@ static irqreturn_t mmc_omap_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
> del_timer(&host->cmd_abort_timer);
> host->abort = 1;
> OMAP_MMC_WRITE(host, IE, 0);
> - disable_irq(host->irq);
> + disable_irq_nosync(host->irq);
> schedule_work(&host->cmd_abort_work);
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
--
-- Pierre Ossman
WARNING: This correspondence is being monitored by the
Swedish government. Make sure your server uses encryption
for SMTP traffic and consider using PGP for end-to-end
encryption.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
