From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:26:35 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] warn about shared irqs requesting IRQF_DISABLED registered with setup_irq In-Reply-To: <20091129023118.GA21529@shareable.org> References: <20091127195857.GB28193@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1259356206-14843-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20091128200344.GA1272@pengutronix.de> <20091129023118.GA21529@shareable.org> Message-ID: <20091129102635.GA22653@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello, On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 02:31:18AM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > What about analysing the code and verifying that the setup order is > > correct ? > > > > Adding save/restore_irq just because you have no clue what the code > > does is utter nonsense. > > Wouldn't it be quite a lot nicer if generic setup moved the > IRQF_DISABLED handler to be first in the list, if that actually works > in a useful way rather than simply being a quirk that irqs are > disabled for the first one? Hmm, what happens if an ISR runs with irqs disabled even though it doesn't expect it? I wouldn't bet that nothing breaks. IMHO the best is if a warning is printed or registering fails if shared irq actions don't agree about wanting IRQF_DISABLED. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |