Re: Get rid of IRQF_DISABLED - (was [PATCH] genirq: warn aboutIRQF_SHARED|IRQF_DISABLED)

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Alan Cox wrote:

> > However, I think we still have a number of corner cases.  The SMC91x
> > driver comes to mind, with its stupidly small FIFOs, where the majority
> > of implementations have to have the packets loaded via PIO - and this
> > seems to generally happen from IRQ context.
> 
> Everything 8390 based is in the same boat. It relies on being able to
> use disable_irq_nosync/enable_irq and knows all about the joys of
> interrupt bus asynchronicity internally. That does however allow it to
> get sane results by using the irq controller to mask the potentially
> shared IRQ at source.

So that would be a known candidate for IRQF_NEEDS_IRQS_ENABLED, right?

Either that or we decide to push such beasts into the threaded irq
space to keep them working until the last card hits the trashcan. I
know that this would still need to disable the interrupt on the PIC
level, but we have already mechanisms for that in the threaded code.

Thanks,

	tglx



--
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/