On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 08:47 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 03:43:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Linus, > > > > > > Would you be willing to take such a patch? > > > > > > Its a rather big one, but if you think its a good idea, I can > > > generate one against whatever tree is needed. > > > > > > Provided I didn't break any !genirq stuff.. then again, that > > > might be a nice incentive to fix up those last few archs. > > > > look good IMO. If there are no objections, and given that it > > Perhaps someone could explain why we want to remove it? I just added > it to AHCI for good reason, so I'd like to know why we think it should > be taken away. > > I added it because I was adding support for per-port interrupts. > In the interrupt handler, we take the *host* lock (not the port lock). > With multiple interrupt handlers per host, we would have to disable > interrupts in the interrupt handler before taking the lock. Which is > foolish because we've just re-enabled interrupts in the genirq code. > Specifying IRQF_DISABLED means we just run with interrupts disabled. > > You can argue that libata/ahci should be using a per-port lock, and > I wouldn't disagree. But I'd still like to know why IRQF_DISABLED is > being removed. The idea is to mandate IRQF_DISABLED for everybody, and since it doesn't do any good to have it a flag if you have it always enabled, remove it ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
