From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755529Ab0CHTsN (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:48:13 -0500 Received: from isilmar.linta.de ([213.133.102.198]:52036 "EHLO linta.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754623Ab0CHTsA (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:48:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:47:57 +0100 From: Dominik Brodowski To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Morton , alan@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: pcmcia's use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN Message-ID: <20100308194757.GB17628@isilmar.linta.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dominik Brodowski , Jan Beulich , Andrew Morton , alan@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <4B94DCB7020000780003337B@vpn.id2.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B94DCB7020000780003337B@vpn.id2.novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hey, On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:17:11AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > (re-sending to correct Alan's email address) > > Commit 635416ef393e8cec5a89fc6c1de710ee9596a51e introduced > this, but I can't see how it can take effect - the argument passed to > request_irq() only affects action->flags (IRQF_*), whereas the flag > in question is a desc->status one (IRQ_*). Am I overlooking > something? If not, while currently this just should not work as expected, > it's latently more significant (as soon as the IRQF_* definitions make > use of the bit used by IRQ_NOAUTOEN). You're right, it seems to make no sense. Or less than that. Alan, what do you think? Best, Dominik