Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Felipe, > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 05:55:50PM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote: >> > Ben's right, there shouldn't be any need for this. This patch could cause >> > some unnecessary interrupt service latency. >> >> That's not what Thomas Gleixner thinks. How about the possibility of >> stack overflow ? > > That sounds like a separate issue from the spurious IRQ problem that the > patch was intended to fix. I agree. The IRQF_DISABLED happens to fix this issue, but it may be masking the real spurious issue as Paul suggested. > I'm not familiar with the discussion on the stack overflow issue. Could > you send a link? > Here's one: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123607359500596&w=2 Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
