2013/6/27 Daniel Vetter :
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> 2013/6/25 Daniel Vetter :
>>> Since we only have one interrupt handler and interrupt handlers are
>>> non-reentrant.
>>>
>>> To drive the point really home give them all an _irq_handler suffix.
>>
>> Could we also
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2013/6/25 Daniel Vetter :
>> Since we only have one interrupt handler and interrupt handlers are
>> non-reentrant.
>>
>> To drive the point really home give them all an _irq_handler suffix.
>
> Could we also add WARN(!in_irq()) or something e
2013/6/25 Daniel Vetter :
> Since we only have one interrupt handler and interrupt handlers are
> non-reentrant.
>
> To drive the point really home give them all an _irq_handler suffix.
Could we also add WARN(!in_irq()) or something equivalent for better
protection? Big backtraces are a nice way t
Since we only have one interrupt handler and interrupt handlers are
non-reentrant.
To drive the point really home give them all an _irq_handler suffix.
This is a tiny micro-optimization but even more important it makes it
clearer what locking we actually need. And in case someone screws this
up:
