On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, David Daney wrote:
> On 03/27/2011 09:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Make use of the IRQCHIP_ONOFFLINE_ENABLED flag and remove the
> > wrappers. Use irqd_irq_disabled() instead of desc->status, which will
> > go away.
> I rewrote my patch set and was testing it. Interesting that I came up with a
> function with almost the same name and purpose.
> However my function told us if the irq was masked *or* disabled. The idea
> being a function that returns true if the irq could fire. We cannot be
> enabling the interrupt in the controller if it is masked.
> For example I need to test this when adjusting affinity, and taking CPUs on
> and off line.
> I don't think your genirq changes can tell the me information I really need in
> their current state. I think we need to consider how the masked state
> interacts with IRQCHIP_ONOFFLINE_ENABLED and irqd_irq_disabled().
> Since I have totally rewritten my interrupt code, I am a bit ambivalent about
> applying these patches. It might make more sense that I adjust my patch for
> your genirq changes and test it before committing it.
The modifications I made are 100% equivalent to the code you provided
in the first place.
The IRQCHIP_ONOFFLINE_ENABLED flag is only used for the on/offline
callbacks. The disabled checked based on irq_data is in the affinity
Unless I'm missing something we should be all set.