From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261821AbULKEWL (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:22:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261826AbULKEWL (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:22:11 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:35214 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261821AbULKEWH (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:22:07 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:21:54 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alan Cox cc: Pavel Pisa , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , trivial@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: VM86 interrupt emulation breakage and FIXes for 2.6.x kernel series In-Reply-To: <1102726628.4948.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <200412091459.51583.pisa@cmp.felk.cvut.cz> <1102712732.3264.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1102723114.4774.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1102726628.4948.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Sad, 2004-12-11 at 01:23, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Until the 10,000th event it actually seems to work rather happily > > > without that change. > > > > I suspect you never tried the level-triggered case. > > Level triggered has never been supported. So? You want it to lock up the machine? Alan, what _are_ you arguing about? That "disable_irq()" is absolutely rquired, because: - not having it locks up the machine if the irq happens to be level. - not having it means that the "enable_irq()" that happens when the irq is reported to user space is unbalanced. > Putting a single disable_irq in doesn't change the fact it doesn't work > because the IRQ is never re-enabled. Did you actually test the code? Did you ever _look_ at it? Linus