From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422681AbWIGDUu (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:20:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422683AbWIGDUu (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:20:50 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:4804 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422681AbWIGDUs (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:20:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:19:53 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: 2.6.18-rc5-mm1: strange /proc/interrupts contents on HPC nx6325 Message-Id: <20060906201953.d96ee183.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <200609062117.31125.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200609062117.31125.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:17:30 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > Hi, > > [I'm not quite sure who should be on the Cc list.] I know ;) > The contents of /proc/interrupts look strange on the HPC nx6325 I'm currently using > (2.6.18-rc5-mm1, 64-bit kernel): > > CPU0 CPU1 > 0: 18073 0 -edge timer > 1: 163 0 IO-APIC-edge i8042 > 8: 0 0 IO-APIC-edge rtc > 9: 120 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi acpi > 12: 149 0 IO-APIC-edge i8042 > 14: 24 0 IO-APIC-edge ide0 > 16: 4796 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi libata > 19: 75 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi ehci_hcd:usb1, ohci_hcd:usb2, ohci_hcd:usb3 > 20: 7 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi yenta, ohci1394, sdhci:slot0 > 23: 672 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi eth0 > 4348: 188 0 PCI-MSI- HDA Intel > NMI: 89 59 > LOC: 18036 18171 > ERR: 0 This is due to a gruesome hack (IMO) in the genirq code (handle_irq_name()) which magically "knows" about the various types of IRQ handler, but doesn't know about the MSI ones. It should be converted to a field in irq_desc, or a callback or something. I already had a whine about this then forgot about it, but it seems that code can't be changed by whining at it ;)