[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48686D8F.8010901@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:22:23 +0300
From: Stefan Becker <Stefan.Becker@...ia.com>
To: ext David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
CC: ext Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: PATCH: 2.6.26-rc8: Fix IRQF_DISABLED for shared interrupts
Hi David,
ext David Brownell wrote:
>
> By the way, did you notice the oddness of IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM there?
> For a shared IRQ, I would rather think that if any IRQ was flagged
> as "too predictable for use as IRQ randomness" (by not having that
> flag set) then the IRQ should never be sampled ... there's some odd
> thought (or non-thought) involved in IRQ sharing.
Good question. What happens when you mix a random and a not-so-random
source: does the result have an as good random quality as the original
random source? If the answer is yes then the current code is OK.
> One technical comment:
>
>> --- a/kernel/irq/internals.h
>>
>> + * IRQF_DISABLED_CUMULATIVE - one handler in the chain has IRQF_DISABLED
>> set + */
>> +#define IRQF_DISABLED_CUMULATIVE 0x80000000
>
> I don't think you should need that flag; and if you did, it should be
> declared in <linux/irq.h> to prevent anyone else from using that bit
> for some other purpose.
My fear was that if it is a public flag in linux/interrupt.h then
somebody might misuse it.
> Instead, I think you can set IRQF_DISABLED in irq_desc[irq].status
> to achieve the same effect.
I actually had the same idea but missed the "irq" in the
handle_IRQ_event() signature :-(
I'll try to send an updated patch today...
Regards,
Stefan
---
Stefan Becker
E-Mail: Stefan.Becker@...ia.com
--
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