linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] wm97xx-core: Only schedule interrupt handler if not already scheduled

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:42:50 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] wm97xx-core: Only schedule interrupt handler if not already scheduled

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:02:35AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:48:19AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > As well as not queuing the work it ensures that the calls to
> > irq_enable() are balanced which helps with implementing that operation.

> Hmm... another question then - what would fire up wm97xx_pen_interrupt()
> again, before wm97xx_pen_irq_worker had a chance to run, if the very
> first thing we do after getting interrupt is irq_enable(wm, 0)?

Normally nothing - in most systems the interrupt will not be shared
and/or the board irq_enable() operation will completely disable the IRQ
line.  The main use case would be if the interrupt is shared and the
board irq_enable() operation doesn't affect other sources, though boards
may also decide that they can do without disabling the interrupt.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/