Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 May 2006 23:30:02 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |