Hi,
In spite of the patches I have been sending (and resending!) over the
past months, there are still 118 occurrences of the idle IRQF_DISABLED
flag in the kernel code. This corresponds to 31 patches which haven't
been accepted yet.
What would you advise to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?
* Send a treewide patch removing the last occurrences in one shot,
bypassing the regular maintainers? Who could take it?
* Remove the definition of IRQF_DISABLED to force the individual
maintainers (and out of tree drivers!) to update their code? It
could be a way of seeing which code isn't maintained any more ;)
* Continue to resend the patches for a few more cycles, until the
corresponding maintainers can no longer bear the discredit?
* Any other solution?
Thank you in advance for your advise!
Michael.
--
Michael Opdenacker, CEO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
+33 484 258 098
2014-02-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Michael Opdenacker
<[email protected]>:
> Hi,
>
> In spite of the patches I have been sending (and resending!) over the
> past months, there are still 118 occurrences of the idle IRQF_DISABLED
> flag in the kernel code. This corresponds to 31 patches which haven't
> been accepted yet.
>
> What would you advise to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?
>
> * Send a treewide patch removing the last occurrences in one shot,
> bypassing the regular maintainers? Who could take it?
Andrew Morton would take it to his -mm tree.
This, IMO, seems to be the best solution to circumvent unresponsive/uncaring
maintainers.
> * Remove the definition of IRQF_DISABLED to force the individual
> maintainers (and out of tree drivers!) to update their code? It
> could be a way of seeing which code isn't maintained any more ;)
No, every single patch has to be 'bisectable' meaning that when you bisect
you should be able to build every single patch as is.
> * Continue to resend the patches for a few more cycles, until the
> corresponding maintainers can no longer bear the discredit?
Maybe once more, if they don't reply, send it to Andrew Morton as well
and CC a few people who know your work is good so that they can ACK it.
Oh and maybe you could add an __attribute__((deprecated)) to it, but
I am not sure that's possible and/or correct.
--
Regards,
Levente Kurusa