Re: [BUG somewhere] 2.6.0-test8 irq.c, IRQ_INPROGRESS ?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> 
> It seems 2.4.23-pre8 included something like this apparently broken
> change (see diff from -pre7 below). Should it be reverted?

No, that one is correct. IRQ_INPROGRESS should indeed be cleared when the 
first handler is installed. It's only clearing it at enable_irq() that is 
wrong.

Also, the "disable_irq()" function _should_ look something like this:

	void disable_irq(unsigned int irq)
	{
	        irq_desc_t *desc = irq_desc + irq;
	        disable_irq_nosync(irq);
	        if (desc->action)
	                synchronize_irq(irq);
	}

ie it should only do synchronize_irq() if a handler exists. That fixes a
potential problem with drivers doing multiple disable_irq()/enable_irq()  
while no handler has been assigned yet.

		Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/