From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965320AbXC0Hdc (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 03:33:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965316AbXC0Hdc (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 03:33:32 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33741 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965310AbXC0HdR (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 03:33:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:32:27 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Paul Mackerras , Linux Kernel list , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: do not mask interrupts by default Message-ID: <20070327073227.GA26457@elte.hu> References: <200702161759.l1GHxsO8010669@hera.kernel.org> <1174972037.5329.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1174972685.5329.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1174972685.5329.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Note that I'm not opposed to the change at all, I think it's a good > idea, I'm just worried I'm discovering it a bit late and I've seen > PICs broken in some many colorful ways that I'm a bit worried... Oh > well... This change does not really change irq-flow semantics, what it does is that disable_irq()'s effect is delayed. The irq controller does not have to re-assert the irq, we've got the soft-resend mechanism. What am i missing? Are you worried about this change causing actual breakage? (and i'm sorry about not having Cc:-ed you explicitly, i could have sworn you were included in that discussion but apparently not!) Ingo