On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 06:45:05PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Hmm. It looks like Siddha sent the wrong version of the patch. > The working tested version had an additional test to ensure > the mask and unmask methods were implemented. > > i.e. > + if (irq_desc[irq].chip->mask) > + irq_desc[irq].chip->mask(irq); > and > > + if (irq_desc[irq].chip->unmask) > + irq_desc[irq].chip->unmask(irq); > + > > Siddha think you can resend the correct version.
Eric, In this version, I added the irq_has_action() check and hence removed the check which ensures the presence for mask/unmask. My tests showed that it was working fine. May be I am missing something. > > Rafael. Think you can add those two ifs and see if you test bed box > works? > > I'm still not convinced that we can make fixup_irqs work in general > but if we aren't going to yank it we should at least make it > consistent with the rest of the code. I agree. thanks, suresh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
