From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Hall Message-Id: <200304142109.h3EL90YY016047@sith.maoz.com> Subject: Re: interrupt context In-Reply-To: <1050346609.3664.55.camel@localhost> from Robert Love at "Apr 14, 2003 02:56:50 pm" Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:09:00 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Robert Love Cc: Jeremy Hall , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: In the new year, Robert Love wrote: > On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 14:51, Jeremy Hall wrote: > > Note if SA_INTERRUPT flag was given to request_irq() then the interrupt > is a "fast" interrupt and runs with all interrupts disabled on the local > processor. > with 2.5.67-mm2, it is SA_INTERRUPT|SA_SHIRQ and looks like it can call multiple interrupts at once. I am not sure what SA_SHIRQ does, but this does not address the case where one CPU holds an interrupt for one card and the other CPU holds the interrupt for the other card. I moved the line rme9652_write(rme9652, RME9652_irq_clear, 0); to after the snd_pcm_period_elapsed calls in the hopes that they would be run in interrupt context, but it did not make a difference. The backtrace looks a little different, but it's still the same crash. _J -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org