On 10/13/07, Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > I think the scenario you outline is an illustration of the approach's > > fragility: disable_irq() is a heavy hammer that originated with INTx, > > and it relies on a chip-specific disable method (kernel/irq/manage.c) > > that practically guarantees behavior will vary across MSI/INTx/etc. > > > I checked the code: IRQ_DISABLE is implemented in software, i.e. > handle_level_irq() only calls handle_IRQ_event() [and then the nic irq > handler] if IRQ_DISABLE is not set. > OTHO: The last trace looks as if nv_do_nic_poll() is interrupted by an irq. > > Perhaps something corrupts dev->irq? The irq is requested with > request_irq(np->pci_dev->irq, handler, IRQF_SHARED, dev->name, dev) > and disabled with > disable_irq_lockdep(dev->irq); > > Someone around with a MSI capable board? The forcedeth driver does > dev->irq = pci_dev->irq > in nv_probe(), especially before pci_enable_msi(). > Does pci_enable_msi() change pci_dev->irq? Then we would disable the > wrong interrupt....
the request_irq==>setup_irq will make dev->irq = pci_dev->irq. YH - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
