On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 09:32 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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!)
I'm worried about some broken controllers I know of that might indeed swallow the interrupt if it occurs, we ack it, then disable it, and later on re-enable it... I think the main case I have in mind (pmac-pic) has the necessary retrigger all over the place but there is definitely a change in the flow of disabling/enabling here. Anyway, I'll run some tests tomorrow and make noise if I find something broken, though I can't test the various embedded thingies in arch/powerpc. Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
