[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200903022018.03736.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:18:03 +0100
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: remove IRQF_DISABLED
On Monday 02 March 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I said nothing about how it is implemented in the IDE code itself. :)
>
> Bart, you're missing the point. I'm _also_ not at all interested in how
> it's implemented in the IDE code.
>
> The whole - and only - point is that there are drivers that are _known_ to
> require non-IRQF_DISABLED semantics. IDE is one such one.
>
> > Fixing this is on long-term TODO (there was just a ton of more high-prio
> > stuff to take care of first).
>
> Even if you can fix IDE to do everything using softirq's or other tricks
> (threads, whatever), nothing really changes. It just means that now there
> is one less driver that may need the non-IRQF_DISABLED semantics.
I didn't meant non-IRQF_DISABLED semantics (I see absolutely no point in
changing it) but IDE's internal "disable IRQs just to enable them" issue.
[ Sorry for poorly explaining things. ]
Thanks,
Bart
--
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