[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:03:29 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
Andrew Morton <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, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...)
* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > Therefore IRQF_DISABLED _will_ be forced on everybody some
> > day soon, and I'll provide an IRQF_ENABLED for use by broken
> > hardware only (and make a TAINT flag for that too).
>
> I don't think you understand how the kernel project works. If
> everyone thinks your change is inappropriate it won't get in.
The change that people had a problem with was the immediate
removal of IRQF_ENABLED, and that's not on the plate anymore.
I dont think anyone offered any example where IRQF_ENABLED is
used in a healthy way - they are all legacy or special hw quirks
where we limp along with enabling IRQs in a hacky way.
Furthermore, even these quirky cases can be supported cleanly
_without_ IRQF_ENABLED: where an IRQ handler can take a long
time to execute, the handler can be converted to a threaded IRQ
handler - where it's fine to enable IRQs as there are no stack
nesting issues.
So there's no real technical problem here.
Ingo
--
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