Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:55:36 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c |
| |
Hi,
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And while I agree that the depth clearing is bogus, but I'd be worried > about removing it in case some driver actually depends on it (ie > historically it has actually been ok to do: > > disable_irq(irq); > .. set up device .. > request_irq(irq, ..); // This will also enable the irq > > even though it's ugly, and I hope nobody does it).
If there are such cases left, I'd really prefer we fix them, as currently nothing protects this against another driver requesting the same irq. To make this even more fun the behaviour is also different if the irq is shared, as the irq is not enabled in this case. In the ide driver I'd really like to see that at the time the probe function reenables the interrupt there is either an irq handler installed or it failed. On the Amiga we also have always problems with this, as the interrupt must be acknowledged by the driver, so we have to be careful not to leave anything pending. The irq handler would automatically take care of this and would make this simpler.
bye, Roman
- 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/
| |