Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:53:30 -0800 | From | "David S. Miller" <> | Subject | Re: PATCH: 2.6.10 - Misrouted IRQ recovery for review |
| |
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:50:40 -0500 Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Please look at the patch below (handful of arches only and against > some old tree, but you'll see what I wanted to do). What I meant > by changing the semantics is that reporting is delayed by 1 interrupt.
This looks exactly like what I was looking for. I think I misunderstood your original description, which is why it is always best to communicate ideas using patches :)
My misunderstanding what that I thought that your flag would work like this:
1) input interrupt occurs, flag is set 2) IRQ handling completes 3) some new IRQ arrives, and this is when we test the flag for dumping sysrq regs
That, fortunately, is not what your patch is doing.
> This is for only one IRQ handler I believe which I think we can > do special-case for. Is it for math-emulation only?
I rather believe it is for vm86 IRQ handling. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |