From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fallback.mail.elte.hu (fallback.mail.elte.hu [157.181.151.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FFF167C02 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:53:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]) by fallback.mail.elte.hu with esmtp (Exim) id 1Ga5yu-00068H-69 from for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:36:52 +0200 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:28:58 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Daniel Walker Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt] powerpc update Message-ID: <20061018072858.GA29576@elte.hu> References: <20061003155358.756788000@dwalker1.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20061003155358.756788000@dwalker1.mvista.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , * Daniel Walker wrote: > Pay close attention to the fasteoi interrupt threading. I added usage > of mask/unmask instead of using level handling, which worked well on > PPC. this is wrong - it should be doing mask+ack. also note that you changed: > - goto out_unlock; to: > + goto out; and you even tried to hide your tracks: > out: > desc->chip->eoi(irq); > -out_unlock: > spin_unlock(&desc->lock); :-) really, the ->eoi() op should only be called for true fasteoi cases. What we want here is to turn the fasteoi handler into a handler that does mask+ack and then unmask. Not 'mask+eoi ... unmask' as your patch does. Ingo