On 1/10/23 20:13, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Sometimes the "why" of a commit is obvious, so it doesn't need to be
> explained, but here it's really not and thus it definitely needs to
> be.  We have had various pings-pongs in the past about whether to EOI
> before/after the interrupt, masking or not, etc. So we really need
> a firm explanation, recorded in the git history, why we believe the
> proposed way is now correct.

Yes, sorry about that.
I think the logic for this should be:

When we get irq N, first we mask irq N, then EOI irq N.
Then call the handler. If there is a user handler for irq N, let the irq_ack
unmask irq N, otherwise we need to unmask irq N now.
But don't EOI in the user handlers anymore.

What do you think?


Reply via email to