How to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?

How to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?

[Michael Opdenacker]

Hi,

In spite of the patches I have been sending (and resending!) over the
past months, there are still 118 occurrences of the idle IRQF_DISABLED
flag in the kernel code. This corresponds to 31 patches which haven't
been accepted yet.

What would you advise to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?

  * Send a treewide patch removing the last occurrences in one shot,
    bypassing the regular maintainers? Who could take it?
  * Remove the definition of IRQF_DISABLED to force the individual
    maintainers (and out of tree drivers!) to update their code? It
    could be a way of seeing which code isn't maintained any more ;)
  * Continue to resend the patches for a few more cycles, until the
    corresponding maintainers can no longer bear the discredit?
  * Any other solution?

Thank you in advance for your advise!

Michael.

-- 
Michael Opdenacker, CEO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
+33 484 258 098

Re: How to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?

[Levente Kurusa]

2014-02-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Michael Opdenacker
<michael.opdenacker@free-electrons.com>:
> Hi,
>
> In spite of the patches I have been sending (and resending!) over the
> past months, there are still 118 occurrences of the idle IRQF_DISABLED
> flag in the kernel code. This corresponds to 31 patches which haven't
> been accepted yet.
>
> What would you advise to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?
>
>   * Send a treewide patch removing the last occurrences in one shot,
>     bypassing the regular maintainers? Who could take it?

Andrew Morton would take it to his -mm tree.
This, IMO, seems to be the best solution to circumvent unresponsive/uncaring
maintainers.

>   * Remove the definition of IRQF_DISABLED to force the individual
>     maintainers (and out of tree drivers!) to update their code? It
>     could be a way of seeing which code isn't maintained any more ;)

No, every single patch has to be 'bisectable' meaning that when you bisect
you should be able to build every single patch as is.

>   * Continue to resend the patches for a few more cycles, until the
>     corresponding maintainers can no longer bear the discredit?

Maybe once more, if they don't reply, send it to Andrew Morton as well
and CC a few people who know your work is good so that they can ACK it.

Oh and maybe you could add an __attribute__((deprecated)) to it, but
I am not sure that's possible and/or correct.


--
Regards,
Levente Kurusa

Re: How to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?

[Michael Opdenacker]

Hi Levente,

Thank you for your good advise!

On 02/20/2014 07:17 PM, Levente Kurusa wrote:
> 2014-02-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Michael Opdenacker
> <michael.opdenacker@free-electrons.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In spite of the patches I have been sending (and resending!) over the
>> past months, there are still 118 occurrences of the idle IRQF_DISABLED
>> flag in the kernel code. This corresponds to 31 patches which haven't
>> been accepted yet.
>>
>> What would you advise to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?
>>
>>   * Send a treewide patch removing the last occurrences in one shot,
>>     bypassing the regular maintainers? Who could take it?
> Andrew Morton would take it to his -mm tree.
> This, IMO, seems to be the best solution to circumvent unresponsive/uncaring
> maintainers.
>
>>   * Remove the definition of IRQF_DISABLED to force the individual
>>     maintainers (and out of tree drivers!) to update their code? It
>>     could be a way of seeing which code isn't maintained any more ;)
> No, every single patch has to be 'bisectable' meaning that when you bisect
> you should be able to build every single patch as is.
>
>>   * Continue to resend the patches for a few more cycles, until the
>>     corresponding maintainers can no longer bear the discredit?
> Maybe once more, if they don't reply, send it to Andrew Morton as well
> and CC a few people who know your work is good so that they can ACK it.
I sent my patches once more, and will see which ones remain. Then I will
send the changes to Andrew Morton as you suggested.

Thanks again!

Cheers,

Michael.

-- 
Michael Opdenacker, CEO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
+33 484 258 098

Re: How to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Michael,

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Michael Opdenacker
<michael.opdenacker@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> Maybe once more, if they don't reply, send it to Andrew Morton as well
>> and CC a few people who know your work is good so that they can ACK it.
> I sent my patches once more, and will see which ones remain. Then I will
> send the changes to Andrew Morton as you suggested.

Just make sure to CC this round to Andrew Morton. There's no reason to
keep him out of the loop for one more cycle.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds