On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > 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
Yeah, and this is why we say it's a NOOP now :) Thanks, Yong _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
