[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200911301238.35750.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:38:35 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Uwe Kleine-König"
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...vell.com>,
Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Andrea Gallo <andrea.gallo@...ricsson.com>,
Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: Get rid of IRQF_DISABLED - (was [PATCH] genirq: warn about IRQF_SHARED|IRQF_DISABLED)
On Monday 30 November 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
> SHARED|DISABLED ought to WARN_ON() and if that doesn't motivate people
> then return -EINVAL. And with any luck that'll prove 6 months later that
> most of the offenders are not used and we can delete them wholesale.
So ... merge an updated version of the original patch, to
get full WARN coverage?
We've had that warning for a long time now. The original
patch just covered non-request_irq() cases. So by your
timetable we're ready for the "return -EINVAL" stage of
the migration... at least, for request_irq() callers.
--
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