> Yes, the MSR_EE is cleared before we jump to do_work. I'm OK with
> clearing the hardirqenable flag. I just assumed that the hardirq flag
> was supposed to reflect the MSR_EE state, so it looked a bit odd
> clearing the MSR_EE at one place and then reflecting the change at another.
Yeah well
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 00:28 +0300, Valentine wrote:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 22:19 +0300, Valentine wrote:
I'm just not sure that we need to clear HARDIRQEN here, since we don't
really hard-disable the the interrupts.
We do, or rather,
on enough anyways.
This version of the patch also spaces the code a bit and adds comments
which makes them (the code and the patch) more readable.
This one seems to work fine on pasemi and another maple-compatible board.
Cheers,
Ben.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
[PATCH v3] powerpc/ppc64:
On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 22:19 +0300, Valentine wrote:
> I'm just not sure that we need to clear HARDIRQEN here, since we don't
> really hard-disable the the interrupts.
We do, or rather, we come in with the interrupts hard disabled, no ?
Ben.
> Thanks,
> Val.
>
> > + TRACE_DISABLE_INTS
> > +
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 00:28 +0300, Valentine wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 22:19 +0300, Valentine wrote:
> >
> >> I'm just not sure that we need to clear HARDIRQEN here, since we don't
> >> really hard-disable the the interrupts.
> >
> > We do, or rather, we co
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 22:19 +0300, Valentine wrote:
I'm just not sure that we need to clear HARDIRQEN here, since we don't
really hard-disable the the interrupts.
We do, or rather, we come in with the interrupts hard disabled, no ?
Yes, looks like the interrupt
he scheduler will re-enable them soon enough anyways.
This version of the patch also spaces the code a bit and adds comments
which makes them (the code and the patch) more readable.
Cheers,
Ben.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
[PATCH v3] powerpc/ppc64: Use preempt_schedule_irq instead
