[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200607141831.35311.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:31:34 -0700
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
Andrew Victor <andrew@...people.com>,
Alessandro Zummo <alessandro.zummo@...ertech.it>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.18-rc1] genirq: {en,dis}able_irq_wake() need refcounting too
On Monday 10 July 2006 1:58 am, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
>
> > It's not just "normal" mode operation that needs refcounting for the
> > {en,dis}able_irq() calls ... "wakeup" mode calls need it too, for the
> > very same reasons.
> >
> > This patch adds that refcounting. I expect that some ARM drivers will
> > be triggering the new warning, but this call isn't yet widely used.
> > (Which is probably why the bug has lingered this long...)
>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>
> we should also add disable_irq_wake() / enable_irq_wake() APIs and start
> migrating most ARM users over to the new APIs, agreed? That makes the
> APIs more symmetric and the code more readable too.
To recap, the driver code _is_ that symmetric, it's just the implementation
that's asymmetric. That is, {en,dis}able_irq() are two separate routines,
while {en,dis}able_irq_wake() are just wrap set_irq_wake().
I'll forward this patch to the the ARM kernel list, to help avoid surprises.
There aren't many in-tree drivers using these calls.
- Dave
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists