[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090423202749.767ab73b@i1501.lan.towertech.it>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:27:49 +0200
From: Alessandro Zummo <alessandro.zummo@...ertech.it>
To: rtc-linux@...glegroups.com
Cc: david-b@...bell.net, Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@....ocn.ne.jp>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hcegtvedt@...el.com, vapier@...too.org, rongkai.zhan@...driver.com,
balajirrao@...nmoko.org, broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH] rtc: Make rtc_update_irq callable with
irqs enabled
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:15:56 -0700
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> > Is not an API change, we are gradually relaxing it if it
> > proves workable :)
>
> Erm, it *is* an API change at least to the extent that
> the last version of the patch made the interface spec
> become incorrect.
I know, I was just playing it down :)
> Current interface spec *requires* that function to be
> called with IRQs disabled.
>
> The downside of that spec is that there's no way to test
> it, since CONFIG_LOCKDEP doesn't understand that almost
> all IRQ handlers don't disable IRQs. So there are some
> bugs in RTC drivers that can only be uncovered by code
> review.
That's was what I was proposing. I'll give a code review
but will not be able to test every driver so I'll need
help from the authors.
But first I need someone to validate the theory that
says that we don't really need the IRQs to be disabled,
as I stated in the email to Andrew.
do you agree? :)
--
Best regards,
Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy
http://www.towertech.it
--
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