Re: [PATCH] Support IRQ_NOAUTOEN flag in set_irq_chained_handler()

[Esben Haabendal]

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, eha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> From: Esben Haabendal <eha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Handle IRQ_NOAUTOEN in __set_irq_handler() (ie. for
>> set_irq_chained_handler()) instead of just silently ignoring it, and in
>> the same way as is done in __setup_irq() (ie. request_irq()).
>> 
>> This give a more consistent interface, and also adheres better to
>> the rule of least surprise.
>
> Well, that might be less surprising for you, but you will be surprised
> that such a change would be a real big surprise for all users of
> chained handlers in arch/arm. They simply would not work anymore.

How is that?  I don't see any use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN flag in arch/arm at
all.  Is there some other way that IRQ_NOAUTOEN get's enabled in
arch/arm?  Or is my patch broken in some way that it does change irq
handler setup when IRQ_NOAUTOEN is not set?

The idea of the patch is that it will do exactly the same as
before, unless you specifically set IRQ_NOAUTOEN before calling
set_irq_chained_handler...

> So we _cannot_ change the semantics here. All we can do is document
> it.

With the current semantics, how are one supposed to be able use
set_irq_chained_handler without having the handler enabled immediately?

/Esben
--
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/