Hi Levente, Thank you for your good advise!
On 02/20/2014 07:17 PM, Levente Kurusa wrote: > 2014-02-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Michael Opdenacker > <michael.opdenac...@free-electrons.com>: >> 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. I sent my patches once more, and will see which ones remain. Then I will send the changes to Andrew Morton as you suggested. Thanks again! Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Opdenacker, CEO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com +33 484 258 098 -- 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/
