On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 06:07:00PM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote: > 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'm not familiar with the discussion on the stack overflow issue. Could > you send a link? This is the link where Ingo discusses why !IRQF_DISABLED could cause stack overflow: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/3/71 You probably wanna take a look at the whole thread to figure out the discussion, but basically Ingo and Peter (Zijlstra) believe !IRQF_DISABLED is a bug and drivers needing that probably should be using threaded irqs (which is not yet merged) or the hw is broken, and for those an IRQF_ENABLED flag will be created and a TAINT will also be placed. Once that gets merged, all drivers will be forced (at some point) to IRQF_DISABLED and those which don't want that will be moved gradually to threaded irq. This patch is also interesting: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/2/33 -- balbi -- 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
