Re: [GIT PULL] irq/core changes for v3.5

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thinking more about it, it's probably the best thing to simply force
> the IRQF_ONESHOT flag if it's missing.

No, that's just crazy.

Now you make broken shit code work, and then you break the *correct*
code that didn't want threading and didn't set IRQF_ONESHOT.

Just face it: if somebody doesn't have an interrupt-time function
pointer, they need to rethink their code. It's a mistake. It's broken
shit.

Why pander to crap? What is the advantage of allowing people to think
that they don't need an interrupt-time function? It's a fundamentaly
broken model, since it *cannot* work tgether with another driver that
wants to have the normal semantics and happens to share the irq.

               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/