Re: [Xen-devel] RE: odd IRQ behavior

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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