From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:39:56 +0000
Subject: Get rid of IRQF_DISABLED - (was [PATCH] genirq: warn about
	IRQF_SHARED|IRQF_DISABLED)
In-Reply-To: <20091130143703.GA7028@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1259356206-14843-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
	<1259578067-29169-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.0911301225110.24119@localhost.localdomain>
	<20091130143703.GA7028@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20091130143956.GA8227@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:37:03PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Now, at the risk of covering old ground, how about we have two separate
> irqaction lists, one for handlers to be called with irqs disabled and
> one for handlers with irqs enabled.  We run the irqs-disabled list
> first, naturally with irqs disabled.  If, at the end of that run (or
> maybe after each handler), IRQs have ended being enabled, print some
> diagnostics.  (We're going to need something like this to ensure that
> drivers interrupt handlers don't enable IRQs themselves.)  Then enable
> IRQs and run the irqs-enabled chain.

Oh, and the other interesting thing to do may be to have a way of
measuring how much time irq handlers run for, so that handlers taking
an excessive time (more than 0.5ms or so - thinking about the 1000Hz
timer rate found on some arches) can be targetted.