On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 3:01 PM Jessica Clarke <jrt...@jrtc27.com> wrote:
>
> On 26 Jun 2020, at 22:43, Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jessica Clarke <jrt...@jrtc27.com>
> >
> > Claiming an interrupt and changing the source priority both potentially
> > affect whether an interrupt is pending, thus we must re-compute xEIP.
> > Note that we don't put the sifive_plic_update inside sifive_plic_claim
> > so that the logging of a claim (and the resulting IRQ) happens before
> > the state update, making the causal effect clear, and that we drop the
> > explicit call to sifive_plic_print_state when claiming since
> > sifive_plic_update already does that automatically at the end for us.
> >
> > This can result in both spurious interrupt storms if you fail to
> > complete an IRQ before enabling interrupts (and no other actions occur
> > that result in a call to sifive_plic_update), but also more importantly
> > lost interrupts if a disabled interrupt is pending and then becomes
> > enabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jessica Clarke <jrt...@jrtc27.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>
> > Message-id: 20200618210649.22451-1-jrt...@jrtc27.com
> > Message-Id: <20200618210649.22451-1-jrt...@jrtc27.com>
>
> Something went a bit weird here.

Argh! Patches seems to apply two Message-id tags and I forgot to
remove them from these two.

I don't think this is a blocker though. Let me know if you or Peter
thinks it is and I can send a v2.

Alistair

>
> Jess
>

Reply via email to