From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761396AbZDBQKa (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:10:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752784AbZDBQKJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:10:09 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:45091 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751749AbZDBQKH (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:10:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:08:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Jaswinder Singh Rajput cc: mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, henrix@sapo.pt, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:irq/genirq] genirq: do not execute DEBUG_SHIRQ when irq setup failed In-Reply-To: <1238686904.3099.22.camel@ht.satnam> Message-ID: References: <20090401170635.GA4392@hades.domain.com> <1238682747.3099.16.camel@ht.satnam> <1238686904.3099.22.camel@ht.satnam> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ > > > > - if (irqflags & IRQF_SHARED) { > > > > + if (!retval & (irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)) { > > > > /* > > > > * It's a shared IRQ -- the driver ought to be prepared for it > > > > * to happen immediately, so let's make sure.... > > > > > > What is this ? > > > > You looking at the wrong place. > > > > > There is no retval: > > > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=blob;f=kernel/irq/manage.c;h=a3eb7baf1e46f2c735edb4cc44e0386cfbc4989e;hb=HEAD > > > > Care to read patches you want to comment on carefully _BEFORE_ you > > start yelling at people and sending useless copies of the wrong > > function around the world. > > > > The patch is perfectly fine and already applied. > > > > Yes, I know somehow you applied it. When you will merge this branch with > -tip/master then you will understand what I am saying. Jaswinder. I really start to get annoyed. That patch applies fine on master as well. > Even function name is changed from: > > 713 int request_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > > 857 int request_threaded_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, And why is this fcking relevant ? Take the patch and try to apply it. It applies perfectly fine on tip/master. And it is still _CORRECT_ there. If you don't know how to read a patch and don't know the code it applies to then taking it and applying it is the minimum you could do before wasting everybodys time. Stop this nonsense before I get really grumpy, tglx