[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b70e4160-62b7-569b-0dd2-fc54d771611a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:05:00 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>, Hans de Goede <hansg@...nel.org>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
"Borah, Chaitanya Kumar" <chaitanya.kumar.borah@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/21] platform/x86: int0002: Remove IRQF_ONESHOT from
request_irq()
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-01-23 12:36:48 [+0100], To linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org wrote:
> > Passing IRQF_ONESHOT ensures that the interrupt source is masked until
> > the secondary (threaded) handler is done. If only a primary handler is
> > used then the flag makes no sense because the interrupt can not fire
> > (again) while its handler is running.
> > The flag also disallows force-threading of the primary handler and the
> > irq-core will warn about this.
> >
> > The flag was added to match the flag on the shared handler which uses a
> > threaded handler and therefore IRQF_ONESHOT. This is no longer needed
> > because devm_request_irq() now passes IRQF_COND_ONESHOT for this case.
> >
> > Revert adding IRQF_ONESHOT to irqflags.
>
> This one should probably go hand in hand with the previous one. It might
> be easier to route both via tip/irq.
For that,
Acked-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists