On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 06:45:05PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Hmm. It looks like Siddha sent the wrong version of the patch.
> The working tested version had an additional test to ensure
> the mask and unmask methods were implemented.
>
> i.e.
> + if (irq_desc[irq].chip->mask)
> + irq_desc[irq].chip->mask(irq);
> and
>
> + if (irq_desc[irq].chip->unmask)
> + irq_desc[irq].chip->unmask(irq);
> +
>
> Siddha think you can resend the correct version.
Eric, In this version, I added the irq_has_action() check and hence
removed the check which ensures the presence for mask/unmask. My tests
showed that it was working fine. May be I am missing something.
>
> Rafael. Think you can add those two ifs and see if you test bed box
> works?
>
> I'm still not convinced that we can make fixup_irqs work in general
> but if we aren't going to yank it we should at least make it
> consistent with the rest of the code.
I agree.
thanks,
suresh
-
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]