On Monday 02 March 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > Hmm, I said nothing about how it is implemented in the IDE code itself. :) > > Bart, you're missing the point. I'm _also_ not at all interested in how > it's implemented in the IDE code. > > The whole - and only - point is that there are drivers that are _known_ to > require non-IRQF_DISABLED semantics. IDE is one such one. > > > Fixing this is on long-term TODO (there was just a ton of more high-prio > > stuff to take care of first). > > Even if you can fix IDE to do everything using softirq's or other tricks > (threads, whatever), nothing really changes. It just means that now there > is one less driver that may need the non-IRQF_DISABLED semantics. I didn't meant non-IRQF_DISABLED semantics (I see absolutely no point in changing it) but IDE's internal "disable IRQs just to enable them" issue. [ Sorry for poorly explaining things. ] Thanks, Bart -- 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
