On 2/10/23 10:56, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> So in the end, I'd tend to think that it's up to queue_intr to do the
> unmasking, like it does now, while spl is still high and thus we don't
> risk nesting. That way it's the in-kernel intr handler that knows
> whether to mask/unmask or not. I.e. it'd
Samuel Thibault, le lun. 02 oct. 2023 01:43:48 +0200, a ecrit:
> Also, "don't EOI in the user handlers anymore.", isn't that already the
> case?
Ah, that's the irqtab.irqdev_ack call in irq_acknowledge.
Then I'd say we should try to move it to queue_intr? So that it's done
before the driver
Samuel Thibault, le lun. 02 oct. 2023 01:56:51 +0200, a ecrit:
> Samuel Thibault, le lun. 02 oct. 2023 01:50:14 +0200, a ecrit:
> > Samuel Thibault, le lun. 02 oct. 2023 01:43:48 +0200, a ecrit:
> > > Damien Zammit, le dim. 01 oct. 2023 23:26:02 +, a ecrit:
> > > > I think the logic for this
Samuel Thibault, le lun. 02 oct. 2023 01:50:14 +0200, a ecrit:
> Samuel Thibault, le lun. 02 oct. 2023 01:43:48 +0200, a ecrit:
> > Damien Zammit, le dim. 01 oct. 2023 23:26:02 +, a ecrit:
> > > I think the logic for this should be:
> > >
> > > When we get irq N, first we mask irq N, then EOI
Samuel Thibault, le lun. 02 oct. 2023 01:43:48 +0200, a ecrit:
> Damien Zammit, le dim. 01 oct. 2023 23:26:02 +, a ecrit:
> > 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,
Damien Zammit, le dim. 01 oct. 2023 23:26:02 +, a ecrit:
> 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.
>
Hi,
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
Hello,
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
---
i386/i386at/interrupt.S | 19 ---
x86_64/interrupt.S | 19 +++
2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/i386/i386at/interrupt.S b/i386/i386at/interrupt.S
index 8ae6b97c..ec2fc656 100644
--- a/i386/i386at/interrupt.S
+++
