On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 00:36:26 +0530 Madhavan Srinivasan <ma...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Make it explicit the interrupt masking level supported > by a gievn interrupt handler. Patch correspondingly > extends the MASKABLE_* macros with an addition's parameter. > "mask_lvl" parameter is passed to SOFTEN_TEST macro to decide > on masking the interrupt. Hey Madhavan, It looks like this has worked quite nicely. I think you've managed to avoid any additional instructions in fastpaths if I'm reading correctly. I will do a more comprehensive review, but I wanted to ask: > @@ -426,79 +426,81 @@ label##_relon_hv: > \ > #define SOFTEN_VALUE_0xe60 PACA_IRQ_HMI > #define SOFTEN_VALUE_0xe62 PACA_IRQ_HMI > > -#define __SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec) > \ > +#define __SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec, mask_lvl) > \ > lbz r10,PACASOFTIRQEN(r13); \ > - cmpwi r10,IRQ_DISABLE_LEVEL_LINUX; \ > + andi. r10,r10,mask_lvl; \ > li r10,SOFTEN_VALUE_##vec; \ > - bge masked_##h##interrupt > -#define _SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec) __SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec) > + bne masked_##h##interrupt > +#define _SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec, mask_lvl) __SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec, mask_lvl) We're talking about IRQ masking levels, but here it looks like you're actually treating it as a mask. I don't have a strong preference. Mask is more flexible, but potentially constrained in how many interrupt types it can cope with. That said, I doubt we'll need more than 8 mask bits considering we've lived with one for years. So perhaps a mask is a better choice. Ben, others, any preferences? We should just use either "mask" or "level" everywhere, depending on what we go with. Thanks, Nick _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
