On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 07:00 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 22:43 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > > As fasteoi type chips never had to define their ack() method before the > > recent Ingo's change to handle_fasteoi_irq(), any attempt to execute handler > > in thread resulted in the kernel crash. So, define their ack() methods to be > > the same as their eoi() ones... > > > > Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > --- > > Since there was no feedback on three solutions I suggested, I'm going the > > way > > of least resistance and making the fasteoi type chips behave the way that > > handle_fasteoi_irq() is expecting from them... > > Wait wait wait .... Can somebody (Ingo ?) explain me why the fasteoi > handler is being changed and what is the rationale for adding an ack > that was not necessary before ?
To be more precise, I don't see in what circumstances a fasteoi type PIC would need an ack routine that does something different than the eoi... and if it always does the same thing, why not just call eoi ? 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/
