From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757307AbXG2F1h (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:27:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752720AbXG2F13 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:27:29 -0400 Received: from gateway.insightbb.com ([74.128.0.19]:27925 "EHLO asav07.insightbb.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752618AbXG2F12 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:27:28 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoXAIjBq0ZKhRO4Rmdsb2JhbACBToVqiCQBAQEWDQYMAQ From: Dmitry Torokhov To: fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix return value of i8042_aux_test_irq Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:27:25 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vojtech@suse.cz, akpm@linux-foundation.org References: <1185437065.4805.19.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> <20070726162913.2dc9a9b2@the-village.bc.nu> <2090.172.50.1.13.1185465429.squirrel@172.19.0.2> In-Reply-To: <2090.172.50.1.13.1185465429.squirrel@172.19.0.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707290127.26058.dtor@insightbb.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 26 July 2007 11:57, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote: > On Fri, July 27, 2007 12:29 am, Alan Cox wrote: > >> > A small number of boxes do share IRQ12 and it was switched to shared > >> for > >> > them. > >> If that is the case interrupt handlers should be able to determine > >> whether > >> a certain interrupt comes from their respective devices, and return > >> IRQ_HANDLED or IRQ_NONE accordingly. Returning IRQ_HANDLED > >> unconditionally > >> when IRQF_SHARED is set seems strange. Is this behavior intended? > > > > Sometimes you simple can't tell and in those cases you have no choice. > As I mentioned in a previous email, i8042_interrupt considers that it > should not handle an interrupt when there is no data to read and, > accordingly, it returns IRQ_NONE in such cases. I was just wondering if we > could follow the same approach to make i8042_aux_test_irq more > IRQF_SHARED-friendly. > Yes, you are right. Patch applied to 'for-linus' branch of input tree. Thank you. -- Dmitry