Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753970AbZK2K0z (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:26:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753569AbZK2K0z (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:26:55 -0500 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:46700 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751956AbZK2K0y (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:26:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:26:35 +0100 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Rusty Russell , David Brownell , Eric Miao , Peter Zijlstra , John Stultz , Nicolas Pitre , LKML , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] warn about shared irqs requesting IRQF_DISABLED registered with setup_irq Message-ID: <20091129102635.GA22653@pengutronix.de> References: <20091127195857.GB28193@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1259356206-14843-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20091128200344.GA1272@pengutronix.de> <20091129023118.GA21529@shareable.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20091129023118.GA21529@shareable.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:6f8:1178:2:215:17ff:fe12:23b0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1191 Lines: 31 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-K?nig | 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/