Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch, -rc5-mm1] genirq: add chip->eoi(), fastack -> fasteoi | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Date | Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:46:20 +1000 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 23:30 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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.
Ok, I'll send a patch changing percpu to also use eoi() later from work unless you beat me to it.
> > > 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?
Ben.
- 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/
| |