On Sunday 29 June 2008, Stefan Becker wrote:I was suspecting something rude like that ... By the way, did you notice the oddness of IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM there? For a shared IRQ, I would rather think that if any IRQ was flagged as "too predictable for use as IRQ randomness" (by not having that flag set) then the IRQ should never be sampled ... there's some odd thought (or non-thought) involved in IRQ sharing. And it looks plausible to me. Seems like this patch (or a variant) should be merged for 2.6.26-final, yes? Disregarding IRQF_DISABLED has -- as you noted -- significant potential for oopsage. I suggest you provide a fully cleaned-up version of this patch with your signed-off-by line and a proper patch description ... do this ASAP, since RC8 is getting a bit late for patches to merge! One technical comment: I don't think you should need that flag; and if you did, it should be declared in <linux/irq.h> to prevent anyone else from using that bit for some other purpose. Instead, I think you can set IRQF_DISABLED in irq_desc[irq].status to achieve the same effect. - Dave --
| Peter Zijlstra | [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest_lock() |
| Gabriel C | Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1 |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [PATCH 2.6.21] cramfs: add cramfs Linear XIP |
| Jiri Kosina | Re: 2.6.21-rc5-mm4 |
git: | |
| Gregory Haskins | [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
