> o lazy-disable state This is an odd state, and confusion regularly comes up ... I've never been a fan of having the imperatively named disable_irq() act like a disable_irq_at a_random_later_time_ _but_nyet(). If one must have the latter function, clearer IMO to name it better and have disable_irq() do exactly that by the time it returns ... that is after all what folk expect given its name and conventional interpretation of "disable". (ergo confusion when that's not what happens) lazy_disable_irq() would be accurate, butI'm not sure many folk would choose to use it. - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
