* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
