Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755910AbZCBPsB (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:48:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753181AbZCBPrw (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:47:52 -0500 Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:40688 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753079AbZCBPrv (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:47:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:47:48 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , lkml , linux-arch , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: remove IRQF_DISABLED Message-ID: <20090302154748.GB14217@parisc-linux.org> References: <1235996477.5330.174.camel@laptop> <20090302144303.GA30136@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090302144303.GA30136@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1686 Lines: 39 On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 03:43:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Hi Linus, > > > > Would you be willing to take such a patch? > > > > Its a rather big one, but if you think its a good idea, I can > > generate one against whatever tree is needed. > > > > Provided I didn't break any !genirq stuff.. then again, that > > might be a nice incentive to fix up those last few archs. > > look good IMO. If there are no objections, and given that it Perhaps someone could explain why we want to remove it? I just added it to AHCI for good reason, so I'd like to know why we think it should be taken away. I added it because I was adding support for per-port interrupts. In the interrupt handler, we take the *host* lock (not the port lock). With multiple interrupt handlers per host, we would have to disable interrupts in the interrupt handler before taking the lock. Which is foolish because we've just re-enabled interrupts in the genirq code. Specifying IRQF_DISABLED means we just run with interrupts disabled. You can argue that libata/ahci should be using a per-port lock, and I wouldn't disagree. But I'd still like to know why IRQF_DISABLED is being removed. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/