[PATCH] warn about shared irqs requesting IRQF_DISABLED registered with setup_irq

[David Brownell]

On Saturday 28 November 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> What about analysing the code and verifying that the setup order is
> correct ?

Better to not care too much about setup order.  Sometimes it's
unavoidable -- X initializes before Y "or else..." -- but the
patch I saw was just reporting goofage better.


> Adding save/restore_irq just because you have no clue what the code
> does is utter nonsense.

Absolutely.  If that helps, find and fix the real bug.