Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:59:43 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: Get rid of IRQF_DISABLED - (was [PATCH] genirq: warn about IRQF_SHARED|IRQF_DISABLED) |
| |
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
| |