From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261229AbUL1SzC (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:55:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261232AbUL1SzC (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:55:02 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-197-226-105.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([63.197.226.105]:50351 "EHLO cheetah.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261229AbUL1Sy7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:54:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:53:30 -0800 From: "David S. Miller" To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjan@infradead.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: 2.6.10 - Misrouted IRQ recovery for review Message-Id: <20041228105330.6da0f0ea.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <200412281350.44195.dtor_core@ameritech.net> References: <1104249508.22366.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200412281228.27307.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <20041228102550.42dbb028.davem@davemloft.net> <200412281350.44195.dtor_core@ameritech.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0rc (GTK+ 1.2.10; sparc-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Face: "_;p5u5aPsO,_Vsx"^v-pEq09'CU4&Dc1$fQExov$62l60cgCc%FnIwD=.UF^a>?5'9Kn[;433QFVV9M..2eN.@4ZWPGbdi<=?[:T>y?SD(R*-3It"Vj:)"dP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:50:40 -0500 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Please look at the patch below (handful of arches only and against > some old tree, but you'll see what I wanted to do). What I meant > by changing the semantics is that reporting is delayed by 1 interrupt. This looks exactly like what I was looking for. I think I misunderstood your original description, which is why it is always best to communicate ideas using patches :) My misunderstanding what that I thought that your flag would work like this: 1) input interrupt occurs, flag is set 2) IRQ handling completes 3) some new IRQ arrives, and this is when we test the flag for dumping sysrq regs That, fortunately, is not what your patch is doing. > This is for only one IRQ handler I believe which I think we can > do special-case for. Is it for math-emulation only? I rather believe it is for vm86 IRQ handling.