On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 29, 2014 12:44:11 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > So really, I'm too lazy to walk through that mess further. I bet NONE
> > of the usage sites except those for which this has been introduced in
> > the first place has a real good reaso
On Friday, August 29, 2014 12:44:11 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > To me, all of this is relatively straightforward and the handling of
> > IRQF_NO_SUSPEND for shared interrupts, which is a separate problem, can be
> > addressed on top of it later (mak
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> To me, all of this is relatively straightforward and the handling of
> IRQF_NO_SUSPEND for shared interrupts, which is a separate problem, can be
> addressed on top of it later (make no mistake, I still think that it should be
> addressed).
Why? Just
Hi,
On Monday, August 11, 2014 03:56:46 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I thought I'd just refresh the previous patchset, but in the meantime I found
> a way to avoid adding overhead to note_interrupt(), so I decided to change the
> approach.
>
> Patch [2/6] fixes the problem with IRQF_NO_
4 matches
Mail list logo
