On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, David Daney wrote: > > > On 03/27/2011 09:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Make use of the IRQCHIP_ONOFFLINE_ENABLED flag and remove the > > > wrappers. Use irqd_irq_disabled() instead of desc->status, which will > > > go away. > > > > > > > I rewrote my patch set and was testing it. Interesting that I came up with a > > function with almost the same name and purpose. > > > > However my function told us if the irq was masked *or* disabled. The idea > > being a function that returns true if the irq could fire. We cannot be > > enabling the interrupt in the controller if it is masked. > > > > For example I need to test this when adjusting affinity, and taking CPUs on > > and off line. > > > > I don't think your genirq changes can tell the me information I really need in > > their current state. I think we need to consider how the masked state > > interacts with IRQCHIP_ONOFFLINE_ENABLED and irqd_irq_disabled(). So you want to know whether the core code masked the interrupt or not. In your case that's equivivalent to the irqd_irq_disabled check simply because you provide a irq_disable() callback which prevents the lazy disable mechanism. Thanks, tglx
