On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 17:53 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 10:37:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Couldn't it be possible to have the misrouted irq function mark the
> > DISABLED_IRQ handlers as IRQ_PENDING? Then have the enable_irq that
> > actually enables the irq to call the handlers with interrupts disabled
> > if the IRQ_PENDING is set?
>
> We still have the ambiguity with disable_irq. Really we need to have
> disable_irq_handler(irq, handler)
Yeah, that does make sense, but I think the IRQ_PENDING idea works too.
This way disable_irq_handler doesn't need to mask the interrupt even
without the irqpoll and irqfixup. Let the interrupt happen and just
skip those handlers that that are disabled. Then when the handler is
re-enabled, then we can call the handler. Of course we would need a
enable_irq_handler too.
This would make the vortex card's disable_irq not hurt all the other
devices that share the irq with it.
-- Steve
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
