On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:27:30PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:34:09AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 05:06:44PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:

quoted

+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+		else if (irqnr < 16) {
+			writel_relaxed(irqstat, gic_cpu_base_addr +
+						GIC_CPU_EOI);
+			do_IPI(irqnr, regs);
+		}
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_LOCAL_TIMERS
+		else if (irqnr == 29) {
+			writel_relaxed(irqstat, gic_cpu_base_addr +
+						GIC_CPU_EOI);
+			do_local_timer(regs);
+		}
+#endif

As I've said for similar patches. neither of these two functions are
designed to be called from another C function (because they're marked
__exception or __exception_irq_entry).  Both of these markers tell the
unwinder that a struct pt_regs is located directly above the functions
stack frame.

I'm also wondering the consequence of not doing so, because we are
seeing icip_handle_irq() and ichp_handle_irq() (arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c)
are doing the same thing, and we are not running into any problem with
above code.

Sorry.  Please ignore the above.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn