Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:11:03 +0300 | From | Sergei Shtylyov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: PowerPC: fix breakage in threaded fasteoi type IRQ handlers |
| |
Hello.
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>>As fasteoi type chips never had to define their ack() method before the >>>recent Ingo's change to handle_fasteoi_irq(), any attempt to execute handler >>>in thread resulted in the kernel crash. So, define their ack() methods to be >>>the same as their eoi() ones...
>>>Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>
>>>--- >>>Since there was no feedback on three solutions I suggested, I'm going the way >>>of least resistance and making the fasteoi type chips behave the way that >>>handle_fasteoi_irq() is expecting from them...
>>Wait wait wait .... Can somebody (Ingo ?) explain me why the fasteoi >>handler is being changed and what is the rationale for adding an ack >>that was not necessary before ?
It's changed in the RT patch for the case of threaded IRQ. This patch is not for the mainline kernels.
> To be more precise, I don't see in what circumstances a fasteoi type PIC > would need an ack routine that does something different than the eoi... > and if it always does the same thing, why not just call eoi ?
Because Ingo decided that calling mask() and ack() methods was a better than calling mask() and eoi(). Here's the thread:
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2006-October/026546.html
> Ben.
WBR, Sergei
- 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/
| |