+Mark
On 30/08/16 11:35, majun (F) wrote:
>
>
> 在 2016/8/30 16:50, Marc Zyngier 写道:
>> On 30/08/16 05:17, MaJun wrote:
>>> From: Ma Jun <majun...@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> During system booting, if the interrupt which has no action registered
>>> is triggered, it would cause system panic when try to access the
>>> action member.
>>
>> And why would that interrupt be enabled? If you enable a PPI before
>> registering a handler, you're doing something wrong.
>>
>
> Actually,the problem described above happened during the capture
> kernel booting.
>
> In my system, sometimes there is a pending physical timer
> interrupt(30) when the first kernel panic and the status is kept
> until the capture kernel booting.
And that's perfectly fine. The interrupt can be pending forever, as it
shouldn't get enabled.
> So, this interrupt will be handled during capture kernel booting.
Why? Who enables it?
>
> Becasue we use virt timer interrupt but not physical timer interrupt
> in capture kernel, the interrupt 30 has no action handler.
Again: who enables this interrupt? Whichever driver enables it should be
fixed.
> Besides, I think we need to do exception check in this function just
> like "handle_fasteoi_irq" does.
I respectfully disagree. This will only hide a whole class of silly
bugs, and I'd rather squash them instead of papering over them.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
