handle_bad_irq_desc()
>
> have proper locking in it and move all users (including do_bad_IRQ()) over
> to it.
I'm guessing the different name would be to avoid breaking existing
users. Wouldn't it be better to just add locking in handle_bad_irq(),
simultaneously removing the lock/unl
()
>
> have proper locking in it and move all users (including do_bad_IRQ()) over
> to it.
I'm guessing the different name would be to avoid breaking existing
users. Wouldn't it be better to just add locking in handle_bad_irq(),
simultaneously removing the lock/unlock around in its invoca
On Thu, 11 May 2017, Gregory Fong wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I noticed that when you changed arm irq handling to use the generic
> implementation back in 2006 that you changed do_bad_IRQ() to the
> following:
>
> +#define do_bad_IRQ(irq,desc,regs) \
> +do {
On Thu, 11 May 2017, Gregory Fong wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I noticed that when you changed arm irq handling to use the generic
> implementation back in 2006 that you changed do_bad_IRQ() to the
> following:
>
> +#define do_bad_IRQ(irq,desc,regs) \
> +do {
Hi Thomas,
I noticed that when you changed arm irq handling to use the generic
implementation back in 2006 that you changed do_bad_IRQ() to the
following:
+#define do_bad_IRQ(irq,desc,regs) \
+do { \
+ spin_lock(>lock);
Hi Thomas,
I noticed that when you changed arm irq handling to use the generic
implementation back in 2006 that you changed do_bad_IRQ() to the
following:
+#define do_bad_IRQ(irq,desc,regs) \
+do { \
+ spin_lock(>lock);
6 matches
Mail list logo