Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:00:55 +0200 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 1/2] rtc: rtc-lpc32xx: Introduce RTC driver for the LPC32XX SoC |
| |
Hi Wolfram,
> > + retval = request_irq(rtc->irq, lpc32xx_rtc_alarm_interrupt, > > + IRQF_DISABLED, "rtcalarm", rtc); > > + if (retval < 0) { > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't request interrupt\n"); > > + goto err_free_irq; > > + } > > I saw that a number of rtc-drivers register their irq after they > register the device. I wonder if this is OK here? Couldn't it happen > that after rtc_device_register() there is a preemption and another > process could set the alarm? Then there is a race between interrupts > already enabled and no handler available, no? If you do it the other way around the irq might trigger and the handler reports an irq for a device that doesn't exist yet.
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | 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/
| |