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

[Jamie Lokier]

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> What about analysing the code and verifying that the setup order is
> correct ?
> 
> Adding save/restore_irq just because you have no clue what the code
> does is utter nonsense.

Wouldn't it be quite a lot nicer if generic setup moved the
IRQF_DISABLED handler to be first in the list, if that actually works
in a useful way rather than simply being a quirk that irqs are
disabled for the first one?

-- Jamie