On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > Thomas, should we just plan on reverting that commit from mainline? It > > > clearly causes regressions. > > > > Give me a day or two to figure out why it breaks stuff. I have no idea > > why it should wreckage anything. > > Hmm. This is interesting. The b43 driver has a primary handler which > can return IRQ_NONE. So up to that change the interrupt line was kept > disabled when that happened. Possibly the driver relies on that > behaviour. Digging for a machine with a b43. Does not reproduce. Now I was looking at the driver again, it does not use IRQ_ONESHOT anyway. So for handle_fasteoi_irq() this patch is actually a NOOP. So the only affected handler would be handle_level_irq(). Still can't see how it changes the !IRQ_ONESHOT behaviour :( Stephan, Sven: Can you please provide the output of /proc/interrupts ? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
