From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: i2c-omap: Call request_irq with IRQF_DISABLED Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:20:56 -0700 Message-ID: <877i2vk2vr.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <7d7e7dd1a4c64c732a21bdfcf2bd42556be708c3.1236345858.git.Ext-Ari.Kauppi@nokia.com> <20090310005222.GE19758@fluff.org.uk> <20090311235908.GC19038@gandalf> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Paul Walmsley's message of "Wed\, 11 Mar 2009 18\:07\:00 -0600 \(MDT\)") Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: Felipe Balbi , Ari Kauppi , Ben Dooks , ben-linux-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Paul Walmsley writes: > Hi Felipe, > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 05:55:50PM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote: >> > Ben's right, there shouldn't be any need for this. This patch could cause >> > some unnecessary interrupt service latency. >> >> That's not what Thomas Gleixner thinks. How about the possibility of >> stack overflow ? > > That sounds like a separate issue from the spurious IRQ problem that the > patch was intended to fix. I agree. The IRQF_DISABLED happens to fix this issue, but it may be masking the real spurious issue as Paul suggested. > I'm not familiar with the discussion on the stack overflow issue. Could > you send a link? > Here's one: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123607359500596&w=2 Kevin