On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:10:17 +0800 > > > > > This flag is a NOOP and can be removed now. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > How are things working now, if that is the case? > > > > Specifically in the ldc_bind() case, we're passing iRQF_DISABLED here > > so that the IRQ is not turned on when we request the IRQ, we later do > > enable_irq() on these after we've take the spinlock in this function. > > > > The IRQ cannot be allowed to be delivered between the request_irq() > > call and the enable_irq() calls. > > > > This sequence is necessary to deal with some lock ordering issues. > > IRQF_DISABLED was telling the core code that the interrupt must run > with interrupts disabled. As we enforced running all handlers with > interrupts disabled the flag is meaningless. It was defined as 0 > anyway. > > What you need to prevent that request_irq() enables the interrupt > unconditionally, is to set IRQ_NOAUTOEN on the interrupt, which can't > be handed in to request_irq(). You want to call > > irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN); > > for that irq. That tells request_irq() to leave the interrupt disabled > and you have to explicitely enable it. That has not changed since we > generalized the irq core code back in 2006. If that's an issue, then we can create an IRQF_NOAUTOEN flag, which can be handed into request_irq(). Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
