[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236034943.5330.1779.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:02:23 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, me@...ipebalbi.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
felipe.balbi@...ia.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
sameo@...nedhand.com
Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 14:46 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:19:31 +0100
>
> > I state that every !IRQF_DISABLED usage is a bug, either due to broken
> > hardware or broken drivers.
>
> We'll send you the bill to have everyone's hardware
> replaced :-)
I'm not saying to remove support for such stuff, as long as we clearly
annotate that its due to broken ass hardware we can leave a IRQF_ENABLED
thingy in there.
Preferably such drivers would be converted to threaded interrupts, but I
thought Alan mentioned an IDE chipset that was so broken even that would
be impossible (could not mask the IRQ for it would corrupt stuff).
The thing I am strongly opposing though, is keeping interrupts enabled
for regular drivers on sane hardware.
--
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