Re: [patch 2.6.18-rc1] genirq: {en,dis}able_irq_wake() need refcounting too

[David Brownell]

On Monday 10 July 2006 1:58 am, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > It's not just "normal" mode operation that needs refcounting for the 
> > {en,dis}able_irq() calls ... "wakeup" mode calls need it too, for the 
> > very same reasons.
> > 
> > This patch adds that refcounting.  I expect that some ARM drivers will 
> > be triggering the new warning, but this call isn't yet widely used. 
> > (Which is probably why the bug has lingered this long...)
> 
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> 
> we should also add disable_irq_wake() / enable_irq_wake() APIs and start 
> migrating most ARM users over to the new APIs, agreed? That makes the 
> APIs more symmetric and the code more readable too.

To recap, the driver code _is_ that symmetric, it's just the implementation
that's asymmetric.  That is, {en,dis}able_irq() are two separate routines,
while {en,dis}able_irq_wake() are just wrap set_irq_wake().

I'll forward this patch to the the ARM kernel list, to help avoid surprises.
There aren't many in-tree drivers using these calls.

- Dave

-
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/