On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:56:55PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 06 February 2013, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > > I haven't looked into it, but I doubt if that is possible without large > > effort, if at all. s390 doesn't have any irq chips, nor something like > > edge or level triggered irqs. > > Instead we have floating interrupts. Does that fit into the concept of > > GENERIC_HARDIRQS at all? > > If so, we can give it a try, sure. But that won't happen any time soon. > > > > Or are you simply proposing we should have both, our own irq handling plus > > GENERIC_HARDIRQS with dummy functions? > > I think you should use GENERIC_HARDIRQ just for PCI, and rename the s390 > interrupt handling to something that does not conflict. I understand > that the concepts are quite different, but with PCI support, you actually > do get all the weird interrupt hardware. > More importantly, some features provided by GENERIC_HARDIRQ are replacing > the traditional interfaces now, e.g. devm_request_irq() is actually > recommended over request_irq() for normal drivers these days, as it > simplifies the error handling.
I would be very careful with this statement. While devm_request_irq() does simplify error handling in several cases I have also seen countless examples when it was used with non devm_*-managed structures that are freed by hand opening race window where interrupts can be delivered and use structure that is already freed. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
