[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1507132304050.20072@nanos>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:07:08 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch 04/12] MIPS/pci-rt3883: Consolidate chained IRQ handler
install/remove
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > Chained irq handlers usually set up handler data as well. We now have
> > a function to set both under irq_desc->lock. Replace the two calls
> > with one.
>
> Are the original calls remaining? If so, should there be a semantic patch
> in the kernel to check for this, in case people ut the two calls in teh
> future.
irq_set_handler_data() can be used in a different context as well.
irq_set_chained_handler() has to stay for now, but we probably can
replace it with irq_set_chained_handler_and_data(irq, handler, NULL).
Have not yet done the analysis.
But yes, a semantic check for this would be nice.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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