Re: [PATCH] drivers:net:hamradio: Removing Depricated IRQF_DISABLED

[Kumar Gaurav <kumargauravgupta3@gmail.com>]

On Saturday 10 August 2013 10:54 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013, Kumar Gaurav wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 10 August 2013 10:17 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> If it is in a | with something else, I think you can just remove it.
>>>
>>> julia
>>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013, Kumar Gaurav wrote:
>>>
>>>> Removed IRQF_DISABLED as it's deprecated and should be removed
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gaurav <kumargauravgupta3@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_fdx.c |    2 +-
>>>>    drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_hdx.c |    2 +-
>>>>    drivers/net/hamradio/scc.c            |    2 +-
>>>>    drivers/net/hamradio/yam.c            |    2 +-
>>>>    4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_fdx.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_fdx.c
>>>> index a974727..c114009 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_fdx.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_fdx.c
>>>> @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static int ser12_open(struct net_device *dev)
>>>>    	outb(0, FCR(dev->base_addr));  /* disable FIFOs */
>>>>    	outb(0x0d, MCR(dev->base_addr));
>>>>    	outb(0, IER(dev->base_addr));
>>>> -	if (request_irq(dev->irq, ser12_interrupt, IRQF_DISABLED |
>>>> IRQF_SHARED,
>>>> +	if (request_irq(dev->irq, ser12_interrupt, IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE |
>>>> IRQF_SHARED,
>>>>    			"baycom_ser_fdx", dev)) {
>>>>    		release_region(dev->base_addr, SER12_EXTENT);
>>>>    		return -EBUSY;
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_hdx.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_hdx.c
>>>> index e349d86..d91c1fd 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_hdx.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/hamradio/baycom_ser_hdx.c
>>>> @@ -490,7 +490,7 @@ static int ser12_open(struct net_device *dev)
>>>>    	outb(0, FCR(dev->base_addr));  /* disable FIFOs */
>>>>    	outb(0x0d, MCR(dev->base_addr));
>>>>    	outb(0, IER(dev->base_addr));
>>>> -	if (request_irq(dev->irq, ser12_interrupt, IRQF_DISABLED |
>>>> IRQF_SHARED,
>>>> +	if (request_irq(dev->irq, ser12_interrupt, IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE |
>>>> IRQF_SHARED,
>>>>    			"baycom_ser12", dev)) {
>>>>    		release_region(dev->base_addr, SER12_EXTENT);
>>>>    		return -EBUSY;
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/hamradio/scc.c b/drivers/net/hamradio/scc.c
>>>> index bc1d521..4bc6ee8 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/hamradio/scc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/hamradio/scc.c
>>>> @@ -1734,7 +1734,7 @@ static int scc_net_ioctl(struct net_device *dev,
>>>> struct ifreq *ifr, int cmd)
>>>>    			if (!Ivec[hwcfg.irq].used && hwcfg.irq)
>>>>    			{
>>>>    				if (request_irq(hwcfg.irq, scc_isr,
>>>> -						IRQF_DISABLED, "AX.25 SCC",
>>>> +						0, "AX.25 SCC",
>>>>    						(void *)(long) hwcfg.irq))
>>>>    					printk(KERN_WARNING "z8530drv:
>>>> warning, cannot get IRQ %d\n", hwcfg.irq);
>>>>    				else
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/hamradio/yam.c b/drivers/net/hamradio/yam.c
>>>> index 0721e72..f947887 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/hamradio/yam.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/hamradio/yam.c
>>>> @@ -888,7 +888,7 @@ static int yam_open(struct net_device *dev)
>>>>    		goto out_release_base;
>>>>    	}
>>>>    	outb(0, IER(dev->base_addr));
>>>> -	if (request_irq(dev->irq, yam_interrupt, IRQF_DISABLED | IRQF_SHARED,
>>>> dev->name, dev)) {
>>>> +	if (request_irq(dev->irq, yam_interrupt, IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE |
>>>> IRQF_SHARED, dev->name, dev)) {
>>>>    		printk(KERN_ERR "%s: irq %d busy\n", dev->name, dev->irq);
>>>>    		ret = -EBUSY;
>>>>    		goto out_release_base;
>>>> -- 
>>>> 1.7.9.5
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors"
>>>> in
>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>
>> Yes i was suggested for using IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE too so used this. Please tell
>> me if this makes any difference or issue?
> I think that the suggestion was to use IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE only when
> removing IRQF_DISABLED would leave nothing left.
>
> - IRQF_DISABLED | e
> + e
>
> otherwise,
>
> - IRQF_DISABLED
> + 0
>
> julia
Sorry to prompt back but i'm confused. if removing IRQF_DISABLED leaves 
nothing then should i use 0 or IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE?
I'm convinced with

	- IRQF_DISABLED | e
	+ e

Regards

Kumar Gaurav