| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] RE: odd IRQ behavior
On 27/02/2009 03:52, "Cihula, Joseph" <joseph.cihula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> But why are these necessary? Even if we say that something has caused the
>> irq_count to go
>> positive before shutdown (but what-it wasn't like this before pulling a more
>> recent tree), the
>> irq_exit() that gets rid of the assertion means that the count has gone to
>> 0-so why is it
>> negative on resume?
>
> As an additional data point/issue, if I build with debug=y, the
> map_pages_to_xen() call (on a reboot) generates a BUG_ON(seen == !irq_safe) in
> check_lock(). But prior to the map_pages_to_xen() call, we call
> local_irq_disable(), so it should be called as irq_safe. I'm not sure how to
> fix this.
Please provide some backtraces.
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home