Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:31:18 +0000 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] warn about shared irqs requesting IRQF_DISABLED registered with setup_irq |
| |
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?
-- Jamie
| |