On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, David Miller wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:32:39 +0200 (CEST)
>
> > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, David Miller wrote:
> >
> >> From: Yong Zhang <yong.zha...@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:10:42 +0800
> >>
> >> > This flag is a NOOP and can be removed now.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zha...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> I have the same concerns here as I had for the sparc case.
> >>
> >> Some of these drivers might be using IRQF_DISABLED to make sure the
> >> IRQ cannot be delivered until it is explicitly enabled via an
> >> enable_irq() call.
> >>
> >> How is that being accomodated now?
> >
> > Again IRQF_DISABLED never ever had that functionality.
>
> My bad.
>
> But what if these interrupts want interrupts disabled during their
> interrupt handler, for other reasons?
We run ALL interrupt handlers with irqs disabled always.
> This has the potential to break tons of stuff, especially on the
> really old chips which almost no developers have any more but some
> user might try to use.
It won't. We removed IRQF_DISABLED from kernel/irq/* long ago
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
