* Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Therefore IRQF_DISABLED _will_ be forced on everybody some > > day soon, and I'll provide an IRQF_ENABLED for use by broken > > hardware only (and make a TAINT flag for that too). > > I don't think you understand how the kernel project works. If > everyone thinks your change is inappropriate it won't get in. The change that people had a problem with was the immediate removal of IRQF_ENABLED, and that's not on the plate anymore. I dont think anyone offered any example where IRQF_ENABLED is used in a healthy way - they are all legacy or special hw quirks where we limp along with enabling IRQs in a hacky way. Furthermore, even these quirky cases can be supported cleanly _without_ IRQF_ENABLED: where an IRQ handler can take a long time to execute, the handler can be converted to a threaded IRQ handler - where it's fine to enable IRQs as there are no stack nesting issues. So there's no real technical problem here. Ingo -- 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
