On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 23:30 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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.
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 [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]
