On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 10:10:55PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> It can if we increment the preempt_count in disable_irq_nosync and
> decrement it on enable_irq.
Who says you're going to be enabling IRQs any time soon? AFAIK, there is
nothing that requires enable_irq to be called after disable_irq_nosync.
In fact, you could well have the following in a driver:
/* initial shutdown of device */
disable_irq_nosync(i); /* or disable_irq(i); */
/* other shutdown stuff */
free_irq(i, private);
and you would have to audit all drivers to find out if they did this -
this would seriously damage your preempt_count.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:40 EST