From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762444AbXGZOuK (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:50:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753787AbXGZOt7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:49:59 -0400 Received: from serv1.oss.ntt.co.jp ([222.151.198.98]:51260 "EHLO serv1.oss.ntt.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752892AbXGZOt6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:49:58 -0400 Message-ID: <1446.172.50.1.13.1185461396.squirrel@172.19.0.2> In-Reply-To: <20070726151042.0ae34e0e@the-village.bc.nu> References: <1185437065.4805.19.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> <20070726151042.0ae34e0e@the-village.bc.nu> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:49:56 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix return value of i8042_aux_test_irq From: fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp To: "Alan Cox" Cc: "Dmitry Torokhov" , Fernando Luis =?iso-8859-1?Q?V=C3=A1zquez_Cao?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vojtech@suse.cz, akpm@linux-foundation.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-2.el4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, July 26, 2007 11:10 pm, Alan Cox wrote: >> The handler does handle the interrupt - both status and data registers >> are read so from the keyboard controller point of view the interrupt >> has been handled even if we happen to discard the data. As far as I >> know IRQ12 is never shared by BIOS... Vojtech, do you remember why we >> request IRQ12 with IRQF_SHARED? > > A small number of boxes do share IRQ12 and it was switched to shared for > them. If that is the case interrupt handlers should be able to determine whether a certain interrupt comes from their respective devices, and return IRQ_HANDLED or IRQ_NONE accordingly. Returning IRQ_HANDLED unconditionally when IRQF_SHARED is set seems strange. Is this behavior intended?