From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965166AbWEaV3q (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 17:29:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965167AbWEaV3q (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 17:29:46 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:19938 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965166AbWEaV3p (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 17:29:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 23:30:02 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, Linux Kernel list , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch, -rc5-mm1] genirq: add chip->eoi(), fastack -> fasteoi Message-ID: <20060531213002.GB3174@elte.hu> References: <1149040361.766.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1149064735.20582.85.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1149066718.766.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060531101925.GA27637@elte.hu> <1149110637.29764.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1149110637.29764.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5024] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Benjamin Herrenschmidt 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