Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Tulip\s+interrupt\s+uses\s+non\s+IRQ\s+safe\s+spinlock\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Tulip\s+interrupt\s+uses\s+non\s+IRQ\s+safe\s+spinlock\s*$/: 36 ]

Total 36 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: Mark Broadbent <markb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 13:56:46 +0100; See Documentation/spin-locking.txt line 137, this states that spin_[un]lock() should not be used in IRQ handlers. As far as I can tell this is the case (disclaimer applies) [see my other reply to Her; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00016.html (11,525 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: Mark Broadbent <markb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 13:57:28 +0100; As far as I can see desc->lock is dropped before handle_IRQ_event() is called in __do_IRQ() (kernel/irq/handle.c:170) and desc->status does not prevent the execution of the IRQ handler. Same with sof; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00017.html (11,002 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: Paulo Marques <pmarques@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:16:11 +0100; Mark Broadbent wrote: The interrupt handling code in the tulip network driver appears to use a non IRQ safe spinlock in an interrupt context. The following patch should correct this. Huh? Can a netwo; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00020.html (9,541 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 07:28:19 +1000; Line 137 in my spin-locking.txt is a blank line :) Please quote the exact text. -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: htt; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00028.html (9,989 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 07:31:08 +1000; prevents the same IRQ handlers from being invoked again (kernel/irq/handle.c:141). Soft IRQs do not run when we're in an IRQ handler (kernel/softirq.c:121). Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.op; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00029.html (10,421 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 07:32:20 +1000; Agreed. However, AFAIK the tulip driver doesn't care about other interrupts. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00030.html (10,131 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 14:32:32 -0700; Even the netdev watchdog? :-) tulip_tx_timeout takes the tp->lock. Therefore it seems that Mark's patch is correct _and_ needed, after all.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00032.html (9,500 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 07:45:45 +1000; The watchdog runs in softirq context which is disabled while the IRQ handler is running. -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00033.html (10,282 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 19:07:57 +1000; Yes this isn't very clear. What it's trying to say that if you're in a softirq/user context and the spin lock may be taken in an IRQ context elsewhere then you must use the IRQ-disabling version. How; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00048.html (10,833 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: <tgraf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 22:24:03 -0400; Mark Broadbent wrote: The interrupt handling code in the tulip network driver appears to use a non IRQ safe spinlock in an interrupt context. The following patch should correct this. Signed-off-by: M; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01182.html (9,987 bytes)
11. [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: enos <jketreno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:42:32 +0100; ipw220; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00995.html (9,083 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:26:41 +1000; 200 +++; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00998.html (8,928 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:35:21 -0700; ks fine; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01061.html (10,084 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: ar <asimshankar@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:43:36 +0400; packet; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01064.html (10,893 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: v <vsu@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:44:40 +0200; imeout(; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01066.html (9,456 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 08:49:31 +1000; - linux; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01071.html (10,417 bytes)
17. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:37:55 +0100; f ->dea; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01081.html (8,315 bytes)
18. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:02:48 +1000; : Herbe; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01085.html (9,153 bytes)
19. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: Mark Broadbent <markb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 13:56:46 +0100; See Documentation/spin-locking.txt line 137, this states that spin_[un]lock() should not be used in IRQ handlers. As far as I can tell this is the case (disclaimer applies) [see my other reply to Her; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01305.html (11,822 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH] Tulip interrupt uses non IRQ safe spinlock (score: 1): Author: Mark Broadbent <markb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 13:57:28 +0100; As far as I can see desc->lock is dropped before handle_IRQ_event() is called in __do_IRQ() (kernel/irq/handle.c:170) and desc->status does not prevent the execution of the IRQ handler. Same with sof; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01306.html (11,289 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]