lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch, -rc5-mm1] genirq: add chip->eoi(), fastack -> fasteoi

* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> Hrm... ok. Not sure I agree with adding one more callback but it
> doesn't matter much.
>
> Thing is, end() isn't used anymore at all now. Thus it's just
> basically renaming end() to eoi() except that end() is still there for
> whoever uses __do_IRQ() and ... handle_percpu_irq(). Doesn't make that
> much sense to me. So I suppose you should also change
> handle_percpu_irq() to use eoi() then and consider end() to be
> "legacy" (to be used only by __do_IRQ) ?

ok, that works with me. I did not want to reuse ->end() just to have a
clean migration path. ->eoi() is in fact quite descriptive as well, so
i'm not worried about the name.

> > sounds like a plan? The patch below works fine for me.
>
> The patch is _almost_ right to me :) I don't need the
>
> if (unlikely(desc->status & IRQ_DISABLED))
> desc->chip->mask(irq);
>
> At all. I suppose it won't harm, but it shouldn't be necessary for me
> and I'm not sure why it's necessary on IO_APIC neither (but then I
> don't know those very well).

hm, i dont think it's necessary either. I'll run a few experiments.
Thomas, do you remember why we have that masking there?

Ingo
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-05-31 23:32    [W:1.850 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site