From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965608Ab0COSIM (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:08:12 -0400 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89]:39172 "EHLO fmsmga101.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933721Ab0COSIH (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:08:07 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,644,1262592000"; d="scan'208";a="780967125" Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:43:59 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: Jan Beulich , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: pcmcia's use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN Message-ID: <20100315174359.7fa53d4b@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20100308194757.GB17628@isilmar.linta.de> References: <4B94DCB7020000780003337B@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20100308194757.GB17628@isilmar.linta.de> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.4 (GTK+ 2.18.6; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:47:57 +0100 Dominik Brodowski wrote: > Hey, > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:17:11AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > > (re-sending to correct Alan's email address) > > > > Commit 635416ef393e8cec5a89fc6c1de710ee9596a51e introduced > > this, but I can't see how it can take effect - the argument passed > > to request_irq() only affects action->flags (IRQF_*), whereas the > > flag in question is a desc->status one (IRQ_*). Am I overlooking > > something? If not, while currently this just should not work as > > expected, it's latently more significant (as soon as the IRQF_* > > definitions make use of the bit used by IRQ_NOAUTOEN). > > You're right, it seems to make no sense. Or less than that. > > Alan, what do you think? It should be setting the correct NOAUTOEN bits so that the IRQ isn't randomly enabled as some hardware then crashes. How it ended up wrong upstream I don't know as it was tested and fixed the bug, so presumably the right version got tested or it happened to work back on the old irq code by luck. I don't think you are overlooking anything - there is no deep magic involved. Alan