Am 17.12.2010 11:41, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Am 17.12.2010 11:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> OTOH, if we have to disable anyway, then we could simply keep it >>> disabled across the installation of a new handler. That would make the >>> notification business go away, wouldn't it ? >> >> No, the notification is still necessary in case the registered handler >> keeps the line off after returning from both hard and threaded handler. > > And how should that happen? If it is in oneshot mode then the line is > reenabled when the thread handler returns. disable_irq_nosync is called by the handler before returning. And it's the handler's job to revert this, properly synchronizing it internally. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
