From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: i2c-omap: Call request_irq with IRQF_DISABLED Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:11:17 +0200 Message-ID: <94a0d4530903111711r7728aeabo8aad5ccd51a33d38@mail.gmail.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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090311235908.GC19038@gandalf> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: me-uiRdBs8odbtmTBlB0Cgj/Q@public.gmane.org Cc: Paul Walmsley , 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 On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Felipe Balbi wrot= e: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 05:55:50PM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote: >> Ben's right, there shouldn't be any need for this. =C2=A0This patch = could cause >> some unnecessary interrupt service latency. > > That's not what Thomas Gleixner thinks. How about the possibility of > stack overflow ? > > According to Thomas (and Ingo, I'd say) all drivers should call > request_irq() with IRQF_DISABLED and that's gonna be true as soon as = the > threaded irq handler support gets merged, if I'm not wrong. That's my understanding too, but I think it has always been true: http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-kernel&m=3D123607685804562&w=3D2 --=20 =46elipe Contreras