Re: How to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?

[Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@free-electrons.com>]

Hi Levente,

Thank you for your good advise!

On 02/20/2014 07:17 PM, Levente Kurusa wrote:
> 2014-02-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Michael Opdenacker
> <michael.opdenacker@free-electrons.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In spite of the patches I have been sending (and resending!) over the
>> past months, there are still 118 occurrences of the idle IRQF_DISABLED
>> flag in the kernel code. This corresponds to 31 patches which haven't
>> been accepted yet.
>>
>> What would you advise to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?
>>
>>   * Send a treewide patch removing the last occurrences in one shot,
>>     bypassing the regular maintainers? Who could take it?
> Andrew Morton would take it to his -mm tree.
> This, IMO, seems to be the best solution to circumvent unresponsive/uncaring
> maintainers.
>
>>   * Remove the definition of IRQF_DISABLED to force the individual
>>     maintainers (and out of tree drivers!) to update their code? It
>>     could be a way of seeing which code isn't maintained any more ;)
> No, every single patch has to be 'bisectable' meaning that when you bisect
> you should be able to build every single patch as is.
>
>>   * Continue to resend the patches for a few more cycles, until the
>>     corresponding maintainers can no longer bear the discredit?
> Maybe once more, if they don't reply, send it to Andrew Morton as well
> and CC a few people who know your work is good so that they can ACK it.
I sent my patches once more, and will see which ones remain. Then I will
send the changes to Andrew Morton as you suggested.

Thanks again!

Cheers,

Michael.

-- 
Michael Opdenacker, CEO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
+33 484 258 098