From: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:13:56 -0600
>
> I noticed that we only look at the first action in the chain when
> determining whether to re-enable local interrupts during handle_IRQ_event.
> But we don't try to exclude sharing interrupts with mixtures of
> IRQF_DISABLED set and clear. I just tried to do that locally, and one
> of my USB ports disappears, because it shares an interrupt with qla2xxx
> which sets IRQF_DISABLED, and UHCI doesn't.
>
> Another possibility is to force it if *any* of the handlers want
> IRQF_DISABLED. This seems to work:
Yes, this is consistent with how we handle sharing, we should
enforce that all the flags on the chain are compatible.
-
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]
