Re: [PATCH] staging: ste_rmi4: Add IRQF_ONESHOT flag

["gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 06:47:25AM +0000, Abdul, Hussain (H.) wrote:
> On Thursday 11 June 2015 08:06 PM, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Abdul, Hussain (H.) wrote:
> >> This patch add IRQF_ONESHOT flag in threaded IRQs request without a primary handler.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Abdul Hussain <habdul@visteon.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> >> index 0f524bb..7caaae0 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> >> @@ -987,7 +987,7 @@ static int synaptics_rmi4_probe
> >>  				rmi4_data->number_of_interrupt_register);
> >>  	retval = request_threaded_irq(client->irq, NULL,
> >>  					synaptics_rmi4_irq,
> >> -					platformdata->irq_type,
> >> +					platformdata->irq_type | IRQF_ONESHOT,
> >>  					DRIVER_NAME, rmi4_data);
> >>  	if (retval) {
> >>  		dev_err(&client->dev, "Unable to get attn irq %d\n",
> > Have you tested this?  This changes the behavior of the code, right?
> >
> Greg,
> 
> I haven't tested this changes. Yes, this will change the behavior of the code.

Then I can't accept this, sorry.  Why would you make a behavior change
without testing something?

greg k-h