From: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:13:56 -0600
> > 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. - 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/
