On Fri, 4 May 2012 18:01:22 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Neil,
>
> On Fri, 4 May 2012, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:54:54 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner
> > <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Why not simply managing the pending bit for level irqs ?
> > >
> >
> > Hi Thomas,
> > thanks again for the patch. I finally made time to test it and it works as
> > expected. I've included it below with a change-log entry and tested-by:
> > in case that helps.
>
> thanks for testing. The changelog is great. You know how to make the
> live of lazy buggers easier :)
Just buttering you up so any future patches slip past easily :-)
I think I'll need to ask for IRQS_PENDING to be set for nested interrupts too
but I'll be a little while before I an look at that issue properly and
propose a patch.
Thanks for your help,
NeilBrown
>
> > for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc) {
> > - if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) {
> > + if (desc->depth == 1 &&
> > + irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) {
> > if (desc->istate & IRQS_PENDING)
> > return -EBUSY;
> > continue;
>
> I split that part into a separate patch, as it's really a different
> issue.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
