From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:13:56 -0600

quoted text
> 
> I noticed that we only look at the first action in the chain when
> determining whether to re-enable local interrupts during handle_IRQ_event.
> But we don't try to exclude sharing interrupts with mixtures of
> IRQF_DISABLED set and clear.  I just tried to do that locally, and one
> of my USB ports disappears, because it shares an interrupt with qla2xxx
> which sets IRQF_DISABLED, and UHCI doesn't.
> 
> Another possibility is to force it if *any* of the handlers want
> IRQF_DISABLED.  This seems to work:

Yes, this is consistent with how we handle sharing, we should
enforce that all the flags on the chain are compatible.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/