From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264499AbUE0ONW (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2004 10:13:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264513AbUE0ONW (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2004 10:13:22 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:21683 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264499AbUE0ONV (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2004 10:13:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:14:04 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Ingo Molnar , Pavel Machek , kernel list , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Cleanups for APIC Message-ID: <20040527141404.GA23566@elte.hu> References: <20040525124937.GA13347@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.26.8-itk2 (ELTE 1.1) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.65 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > The I/O APIC need not be hooked to PCI ;-) -- I'm not sure about the > i82093AA, but that's definitely true for the i82489DX. The call to > io_apic_sync() is needed for masking to make sure interrupts won't be > dispatched after returning from the call -- this is not needed for > unmasking as a delay here is harmless. well, an APIC message could be on the way to the CPU even with this synchronization. Does it matter whether it's a newly dispatched one due to POST delays or an in-fly one due to APIC bus delays? Ingo