Re: How to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?

[Levente Kurusa]

2014-02-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Michael Opdenacker
<michael.opdenacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi,
>
> In spite of the patches I have been sending (and resending!) over the
> past months, there are still 118 occurrences of the idle IRQF_DISABLED
> flag in the kernel code. This corresponds to 31 patches which haven't
> been accepted yet.
>
> What would you advise to get rid of IRQF_DISABLED for good?
>
>   * Send a treewide patch removing the last occurrences in one shot,
>     bypassing the regular maintainers? Who could take it?

Andrew Morton would take it to his -mm tree.
This, IMO, seems to be the best solution to circumvent unresponsive/uncaring
maintainers.

>   * Remove the definition of IRQF_DISABLED to force the individual
>     maintainers (and out of tree drivers!) to update their code? It
>     could be a way of seeing which code isn't maintained any more ;)

No, every single patch has to be 'bisectable' meaning that when you bisect
you should be able to build every single patch as is.

>   * Continue to resend the patches for a few more cycles, until the
>     corresponding maintainers can no longer bear the discredit?

Maybe once more, if they don't reply, send it to Andrew Morton as well
and CC a few people who know your work is good so that they can ACK it.

Oh and maybe you could add an __attribute__((deprecated)) to it, but
I am not sure that's possible and/or correct.


--
Regards,
Levente Kurusa
--
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/