On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:43:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:57:21 +0200 (CEST) > > > > > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, David Miller wrote: > > >> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:33:52 +0200 (CEST) > > >> > > >> We had big problems when openning thousands of virtual network > > >> devices, each with their own unique IRQ, and pointed all at the same > > >> cpu, and we'd get IRQ stack overflows. > > >> > > >> See commit c58543c869606532c2382f027d6466f4672ea756 > > >> > > >> So this change to make IRQF_DISABLED a nop has reintroduced this bug. > > > > > > See commit e58aa3d2d0cc01ad8d6f7f640a0670433f794922 > > > > > > We run ALL interrupt handlers with interrupts disabled for that reason > > > and we even check and yell when an interrupt handler returns with > > > interrupts enabled. That's why IRQF_DISABLED became meaningless. > > > > Awesome. > > > > Can I politely ask that a reference to that commit and something like > > your paragraph here explaining things is added to these IRQF_DISABLED > > removal patches? I should have shown more in the commit log, thus this kind of misleading could be avoided. Sorry Dave. > > That's a good idea. I'll let sed loose on the changelogs when I pick > them up. Thanks Thomas. Yong -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
