Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 13:12 -0800, Mike Mason wrote:
I'm resubmitting this patch with a couple changes
suggested by Michael Ellerman. 1) the new functions
should be static, and 2) some people may object to
including unrelated formating changes.
=
2009/2/10 Michael Ellerman :
> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 11:14 -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote:
>> On a somewhat-related note: there was an issue (I forget
>> the details) where the kernel needed to shadow some sort
>> of MSI state so that it could be correctly, um, kept-track-of,
>> after an EEH reset (it
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 13:12 -0800, Mike Mason wrote:
> I'm resubmitting this patch with a couple changes
> suggested by Michael Ellerman. 1) the new functions
> should be static, and 2) some people may object to
> including unrelated formating changes.
>
>
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 11:14 -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Mike Mason :
> > The EEH code disables and enables interrupts during the
> > device recovery process. This is unnecessary for MSI
> > and MSI-X interrupts because they are effectively disabled
> > by the DMA Stopped state when an E
I'm resubmitting this patch with a couple changes
suggested by Michael Ellerman. 1) the new functions
should be static, and 2) some people may object to
including unrelated formating changes.
=
The EEH code disables and enables interrupts
2009/2/9 Mike Mason :
> The EEH code disables and enables interrupts during the
> device recovery process. This is unnecessary for MSI
> and MSI-X interrupts because they are effectively disabled
> by the DMA Stopped state when an EEH error occurs. The current code is also
> incorrect for MSI-X i
The EEH code disables and enables interrupts during the
device recovery process. This is unnecessary for MSI
and MSI-X interrupts because they are effectively disabled
by the DMA Stopped state when an EEH error occurs. The
current code is also incorrect for MSI-X interrupts. It
doesn't take i
