[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...)

    * Alan Cox <> wrote:

    > > Therefore IRQF_DISABLED _will_ be forced on everybody some
    > > day soon, and I'll provide an IRQF_ENABLED for use by broken
    > > hardware only (and make a TAINT flag for that too).
    > I don't think you understand how the kernel project works. If
    > everyone thinks your change is inappropriate it won't get in.

    The change that people had a problem with was the immediate
    removal of IRQF_ENABLED, and that's not on the plate anymore.

    I dont think anyone offered any example where IRQF_ENABLED is
    used in a healthy way - they are all legacy or special hw quirks
    where we limp along with enabling IRQs in a hacky way.

    Furthermore, even these quirky cases can be supported cleanly
    _without_ IRQF_ENABLED: where an IRQ handler can take a long
    time to execute, the handler can be converted to a threaded IRQ
    handler - where it's fine to enable IRQs as there are no stack
    nesting issues.

    So there's no real technical problem here.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-03 11:07    [W:0.021 / U:408.824 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site