Re: pcmcia's use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN

[Dominik Brodowski]

Hey,

On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:17:11AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> (re-sending to correct Alan's email address)
> 
> Commit 635416ef393e8cec5a89fc6c1de710ee9596a51e introduced
> this, but I can't see how it can take effect - the argument passed to
> request_irq() only affects action->flags (IRQF_*), whereas the flag
> in question is a desc->status one (IRQ_*). Am I overlooking
> something? If not, while currently this just should not work as expected,
> it's latently more significant (as soon as the IRQF_* definitions make
> use of the bit used by IRQ_NOAUTOEN).

You're right, it seems to make no sense. Or less than that.

Alan, what do you think?

Best,
	Dominik
--
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/