On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 12:35:27PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 11:17:00AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I've still some doubts about these irq handlers and I hope somebody > > could explain some of these (despite my problems with earlier such > > explanations, sorry...): > > > > 1. According to some well-known Intel's manual (vol.3A page 8-41) > > lapic can interrupt irq handler dispatching higher-priority irq; it > > seems, such an event is possible during handle_IRQ_event, and would > > be treated by "common" handlers with IRQ_INPROGRESS; but: > > OOPS!!! Of course, I got this wrong again: this IRQ_INPROGRESS is > for another irq... Sorry! > > But, then, it seems such IRQ_INPROGRESS shouldn't be possible at all > with properly working lapic? Or do I miss something...
I see... So, it's possible for handle_level_irq and handle_edge_irq because of this early acking. (Then unmasking should work OK and my 1.a is invalid.) But handle_fasteoi_irq? If it really needs IRQ_INPROGRESS check, this patch, and maybe something more, seems needed too. Jarek P. - 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/
