From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750769AbWAEKkQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 05:40:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751117AbWAEKkQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 05:40:16 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:63396 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750769AbWAEKkP (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 05:40:15 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Debug shared irqs. From: David Woodhouse To: Andrew Morton Cc: arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060105021929.498f45ef.akpm@osdl.org> References: <1135251766.3557.13.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20060105021929.498f45ef.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:39:58 +0000 Message-Id: <1136457598.4158.175.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 02:19 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > This is going to cause me a ton of grief. How's about you put it in > Fedora for a few weeks, get all the drivers debugged first ;) I'd do that normally, but it's the wrong point in the cycle -- we're getting ready for Fedora Core 5 at the moment; it's not the time to be doing such things. We can apply the patch... but we'd have to turn the config option off :) What you're seeing is the whole point of the patch, surely? And it _is_ a config option -- people aren't forced to turn it on. Would it help if we added a printk to make it more obvious what's happening, which gives the naïve user the opportunity to turn off the config option just to get things working again? Somethign along the lines of "Faking irq %d due to CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ. If your machine crashes now, don't blame akpm"? Out of interest, does your i810 patch fix the problem which was reported in November by Eyal Lebedinsky ("2.6.14.2: repeated oops in i810 init")? -- dwmw2