From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keith Owens <kaos@sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:05:10 +0000
Subject: Re: [patch] 2.4.25-pre8, 2.6.2-rc2 mca.c - pass irq_safe around
Message-Id: <9577.1076454310@ocs3.ocs.com.au>
List-Id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
References: <9337.1076049423@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <9337.1076049423@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:57:17 -0800, 
David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:37:03 +1100, Keith Owens <kaos@sgi.com> said:
>  Keith> Patches from Ben Woodward to calculate irq_safe once and pass
>  Keith> it around.
>
>I applied the patch but I'm wondering what happens if someone adds a
>new SAL_INFO_TYPE which isn't irq-safe.  Wouldn't it be safer to flip
>things around and check sal_info_type against known-to-be-safe values?

Adding a new type requires changes all through mca.c and salinfo.c, as
well as user space.  The periodic timer in salinfo has to explicitly
scan the irq unsafe entries.  We would spot any new unsafe type.