[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [BUG somewhere] 2.6.0-test8 irq.c, IRQ_INPROGRESS ?

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> It seems 2.4.23-pre8 included something like this apparently broken
> change (see diff from -pre7 below). Should it be reverted?

No, that one is correct. IRQ_INPROGRESS should indeed be cleared when the
first handler is installed. It's only clearing it at enable_irq() that is

Also, the "disable_irq()" function _should_ look something like this:

void disable_irq(unsigned int irq)
irq_desc_t *desc = irq_desc + irq;
if (desc->action)

ie it should only do synchronize_irq() if a handler exists. That fixes a
potential problem with drivers doing multiple disable_irq()/enable_irq()
while no handler has been assigned yet.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.050 / U:0.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site