On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:14:51AM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote: >Hi Daniel, > >I see the problem - pnv_eeh_next_error() re-enables the interrupt but it gets >called from a loop if there are more outstanding events to process. The most >obvious solution would be to do this check before enabling interrupts: > > if (ret == EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE && eeh_enabled()) > >instead of: > > if (eeh_enabled()) > >This should work fine so long as pnv_eeh_next_error() is called continuously >until is returns either EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE or another value which signals that >pnv_eeh_next_error() should never be called again. As far as I can tell this >looks to be true (perhaps Gavin can confirm?) >
Yeah, I confirmed. The way that Alistair fixes the issue is simple and more precise. Please try his fix and ignore the one I sent couple of minutes before. Thanks, Gavin >Would you mind trying the below patch and seeing if it fixes the problem? >Thanks! > >-- >8 -- >>From 6eeed1d6dd25e8cf6bfe3423dc50ff855d1cbc42 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >From: Alistair Popple <alist...@popple.id.au> > >--- > arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c >b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c >index ca825ec..ff41c03 100644 >--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c >+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c >@@ -1478,7 +1478,7 @@ static int pnv_eeh_next_error(struct eeh_pe **pe) > } > > /* Unmask the event */ >- if (eeh_enabled()) >+ if (ret == EEH_NEXT_ERR_NONE && eeh_enabled()) > enable_irq(eeh_event_irq); > > return ret; >-- >1.8.3.2 > > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
