On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > 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.
No. It's no better than the current situation.
There are really a few choices:
(a) Keep it like we always have. What's the downside, really? It's what
we've got, it's what is tested.
(b) Enforce that flags match. This may sound logical, but it will
actually *break* existing setups, because tons of drivers set
IRQF_DISABLED for no good reason (probably all totally historical)
(c) "one IRQF_DISABLED means that everything runs disabled". This is
quite possibly buggy. There have been SCSI drivers with timeout
behaviour where they actually wait for timers to happen while in
their irq handlers. Bad form, and I *hope* we've fixed them all, but
I distinctly remember it being important that the timer had higher
priority than some SCSI drivers on some architecture.
(d) "one !IRFQ_DISABLED means that everything runs with irq's on". I
don't think it's any better than the other behaviour.
(e) Just ignore IRQF_DISABLED entirely when mixed with IRQF_SHARED,
because they're all pretty much guaranteed to be legacy and buggy and
pointless.
(f) Disable and re-enable interrupts per handler.
Quite frankly, my preference would be (a) followed by (e) or (f), and
(b)-(d) are in my opinion the worst of the lot with no upsides at all (and
(b) in particular is pretty much _guaranteed_ to break existing setups).
Linus
-
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/
