Hi!
> > In general, I think that calling free_irq is the right behavior.
>
> I DO NOT CARE!
>
> It breaks hundreds of drivers. End of discussion.
>
> You can do the free_irq() and request_irq() changes _without_ breaking
> hundreds of drivers by just doing one driver at a time.
>
> And if ACPI then restores the irq controller state, the drivers that
> _don't_ do this will _also_ continue to work.
>
> Let me re-iterate: the ACPI changes provably BROKE REAL PEOPLES SETUPS.
>
> For absolutely _zero_ gain. Drivers that want to free and re-aquire an
> interrupt can do so _regardless_ of whether ACPI restores irq routings
> automatically or not.
>
> And that's my argument. We don't do stupid things that break peoples
> existing setups in ways that nobody can debug.
Ok, so we'll keep adding those free_irq/request_irq pairs, and
re-introduce that ACPI change when we are ready? It would be helpfull
to keep the "right thing" in -mm, so there's real motivation to add
free_irq/request_irq.
Pavel
--
if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |