Re: [patch, -rc5-mm1] genirq: add chip->eoi(), fastack -> fasteoi

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* 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.

> > 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