Re: [PATCH] warn about shared irqs requesting IRQF_DISABLEDregistered with setup_irq

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello,

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 02:31:18AM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > What about analysing the code and verifying that the setup order is
> > correct ?
> > 
> > Adding save/restore_irq just because you have no clue what the code
> > does is utter nonsense.
> 
> Wouldn't it be quite a lot nicer if generic setup moved the
> IRQF_DISABLED handler to be first in the list, if that actually works
> in a useful way rather than simply being a quirk that irqs are
> disabled for the first one?
Hmm, what happens if an ISR runs with irqs disabled even though it
doesn't expect it?  I wouldn't bet that nothing breaks.

IMHO the best is if a warning is printed or registering fails if shared
irq actions don't agree about wanting IRQF_DISABLED.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                              | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                    | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/