From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:03:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20090303100329.GA5050@elte.hu> References: <1235762883-20870-1-git-send-email-me@felipebalbi.com> <200903021633.08736.david-b@pacbell.net> <20090303004427.GA8638@elte.hu> <200903021837.08635.david-b@pacbell.net> <1236072446.18955.44.camel@twins> <20090303094743.030b2507@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090303094743.030b2507@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Peter Zijlstra , David Brownell , Andrew Morton , me@felipebalbi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, felipe.balbi@nokia.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, sameo@openedhand.com, tglx@linutronix.de List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org * 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. Ingo