Hi Ben,
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 11:52 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Hi Thomas, Ingo !
>
> There is one bit in genirq that I don't get (and doesn't work for me),
> it's the "fastack" handler. It does:
>
> out:
> if (!(desc->status & IRQ_DISABLED))
> desc->chip->ack(irq);
> else
> desc->chip->mask(irq);
>
> Which doesn't at all match the needs of things like XICS or MPIC and
> thus I wonder if it does also make sense for controllers for which you
> intend it. It should just be:
>
> desc->chip->end(irq);
>
> Basically, those controllers will have 1) already acke'd the interrupt
> by the time you get the vector (the act of getting the vector does the
> ack), 2) will use a processor priority mecanism to handle non-reentrency
> of an interrupt thus mask/unmask is completely orthogonal to handling of
> interrupts and thus there is no need to do anything about mask/unmask in
> the handler, 3) all we need is to do an "EOI" (end of interrupt) at the
> end of the handling, which is what is done logically in the end()
> handler.
I see your point, but isn't EOI the chip specific implementation of
chip->ack() in that case ?
The intention was to get down to the chip primitives and away from the
flow type chip->functions. Your patch would actually force the flow
control part (if (!(desc->status & IRQ_DISABLED))) back into the end()
function for Ingo's x86 implementation. So the intended seperation of
low level chip functions and flow control would be moot.
tglx
-
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]
