On 12-10-21, 11:16, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I don't see a problem with the flexibility, but I find the inconsistency > slightly annoying: if disabling the interrupt line has the side-effect of > masking it, it should not be possible to unmask it before enabling.
I agree, this doesn't look consistent here. > To have it more consistent, it would seem better to do one of two > things: > > a) require disabled interrupts to always be masked, only allowing > the unmask to happen after enable, while forcing a mask > during disable. > > or > > b) separate the 'mask' from the 'disable' operation, leaving the > event descriptor queued if you disable it, but adding another > operation for an explicit mask (i.e. return the event descriptor) > that is separate from 'disable'. > > I would prefer a) here since I think that makes a nicer virtio spec, > but b) would make it more similar to hardware gpio controllers. > > In the end, I don't think any of the combinations would cause > problems, this is just a matter of personal taste. I also like option A to be a better (easier) choice here, though it may make the Linux implementation a bit inefficient (maybe few extra if/else blocks while enabling/disabling irqs). I will update this in the next version then. -- viresh --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
