On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 14:10 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > What's unfortunate is that you prefer not to fix that > IRQF_DISABLED bug in lockdep, which you co-"maintain". > When running with lockdep, that bug (a) introduces bugs > in some drivers and (b) hides bugs in others. You've > rejected even a minimal warning fix, to help minimize > the amount of time developers waste on (a) and (b). I've come to the conclusion that the only technically sound solution is to do as I proposed today, utterly eliminate !IRQF_DISABLED handlers. Apparently you had enough time to come up with the creative genirq abuse of twl4030, I think that with a similar effort you could have implemented generic threaded irq stuff like proposed by Thomas. > Attacking folk for having to cope with such bugs escalates > things beyond "unfortunate". If lockdep is "maintained", > your response should be fixing that lockdep bug. Once > that's done, all workarounds for that bug can be removed. I state there is no lockdep bug in this respect. The bug is trying to enable interrupts from hardirq context and running code that assumes hardirq context from task context. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
