On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:41:02 +0200 Andreas Fenkart
> <andreas.fenk...@streamunlimited.com> wrote:
>
> > This is in line with irq_enable that uses the same fallback.
> > When masked, interrupts are still latched into the status register
> > so when unmasked there is an interrupt straight away.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/kernel/irq/chip.c
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/chip.c
> > @@ -216,10 +216,11 @@ void irq_enable(struct irq_desc *desc)
> > void irq_disable(struct irq_desc *desc)
> > {
> > irq_state_set_disabled(desc);
> > - if (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_disable) {
> > + if (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_disable)
> > desc->irq_data.chip->irq_disable(&desc->irq_data);
> > - irq_state_set_masked(desc);
> > - }
> > + else
> > + desc->irq_data.chip->irq_mask(&desc->irq_data);
> > + irq_state_set_masked(desc);
> > }
> >
> > void irq_percpu_enable(struct irq_desc *desc, unsigned int cpu)
>
> Well I hope Thomas knows what this patch does, because I sure don't.
I know what it does, but the changelog is completely useless.
> Does it fix a bug? Does it add a bug? Does it have any
> runtime-observable effects at all? If so, what are they?
It fixes a state inconsistency. Have to think about observable
effects.
Thanks
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
