Re: [patch, -rc5-mm1] locking validator: special rule: 8390.c disable_irq()

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 18:34 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.
can't do that; if you get an irq anyway from the hardware you now have a
screamer...... which is why vortex really needs to disable the irq at
the hardware level.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/