On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 19/09/16 10:12, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > >>          if (handle != handle_bad_irq && is_chained) {
> > >> +                unsigned int type = 
> > >> irqd_get_trigger_type(&desc->irq_data);
> > >> +
> > >>                  /*
> > >>                   * We're about to start this interrupt immediately,
> > >>                   * hence the need to set the trigger configuration.
> > >> @@ -828,8 +830,10 @@ __irq_do_set_handler(struct irq_desc *desc, 
> > >> irq_flow_handler_t handle,
> > >>                   * chained interrupt. Reset it immediately because we
> > >>                   * do know better.
> > >>                   */
> > >> -                __irq_set_trigger(desc, 
> > >> irqd_get_trigger_type(&desc->irq_data));
> > >> -                desc->handle_irq = handle;
> > >> +                if (type != IRQ_TYPE_NONE) {
> > >> +                        __irq_set_trigger(desc, type);
> > >> +                        desc->handle_irq = handle;
> > > 
> > > Are you really sure that the handler should only be set when the trigger
> > > type is != NONE? I seriously doubt that this is correct.
> > 
> > The handler has already been set outside of if() statement (at line
> > 819). Here, we only set it again if we've actually called
> > __irq_set_trigger() which could have changed it to something that takes
> > the type into account (handle_level_irq or handle_edge_irq, for example).
> 
> Ah. I'll add a comment...

Bah. There is one already. Reading patches before being awake seems not to
be a brilliant idea.


Reply via email to