2014-02-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenac...@free-electrons.com>: > Hi, > > In spite of the patches I have been sending (and resending!) over the > past months, there are still 118 occurrences of the idle IRQF_DISABLED > flag in the kernel code. This corresponds to 31 patches which haven't > been accepted yet. > > What would you advise to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good? > > * Send a treewide patch removing the last occurrences in one shot, > bypassing the regular maintainers? Who could take it?
Andrew Morton would take it to his -mm tree. This, IMO, seems to be the best solution to circumvent unresponsive/uncaring maintainers. > * Remove the definition of IRQF_DISABLED to force the individual > maintainers (and out of tree drivers!) to update their code? It > could be a way of seeing which code isn't maintained any more ;) No, every single patch has to be 'bisectable' meaning that when you bisect you should be able to build every single patch as is. > * Continue to resend the patches for a few more cycles, until the > corresponding maintainers can no longer bear the discredit? Maybe once more, if they don't reply, send it to Andrew Morton as well and CC a few people who know your work is good so that they can ACK it. Oh and maybe you could add an __attribute__((deprecated)) to it, but I am not sure that's possible and/or correct. -- Regards, Levente Kurusa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
