[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070510152636.4adb3ef1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:26:36 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Marc Pignat <marc.pignat@...s.ch>
Cc: andrew@...people.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] at91: fix enable/disable_irq_wake symmetry in pcmcia
driver
On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:09:35 +0200
Marc Pignat <marc.pignat@...s.ch> wrote:
> from Marc Pignat <marc.pignat@...s.ch>
>
> fix enable_irq_wake and disable_irq_wake symmetry in at91 pcmcia driver
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Pignat <marc.pignat@...s.ch>
> ---
> Please forget the [PATCH] at91: fix enable/disable_irq_wake symmetry in pcmcia driver,
> it doesn't compile... Here is the good patch!
>
> This patch applies to the 2.6.21.1 kernel.
>
> disable_irq_wake call must be symmetric with enable_irq_wake. This patch fix
> that problem for the at91_pcmia driver.
> It seems that this patch was forgotten when we've fixed irq_wake symmetry in
> all at91 related drivers.
> It was discussed in the "at91 drivers and [enable/disable]_irq_wake (wrong?)
> usage" thread on the linux-arm-kernel mailing list.
That's not a terribly useful changelog, sorry. I look at the patch and I
don't know what was wrong with the old code, nor how this new code improves
things.
"disable_irq_wake call must be symmetric with enable_irq_wake". hmm, OK,
I'll take your word for it.
Does the present code actually fail in some manner, or what?
-
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