Re: [RFC -tip] x86: do_IRQ - send APIC EOI for x86-32 on irq without handler v3

[Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>]

[Ingo Molnar - Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 02:27:50PM +0200]
| 
| * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org> wrote:
| 
| > Ingo, I've checked the sources and as far as I see
| > we could NOP'ify apic->write indeed but I have
| > an internal feeling that this will bring us more problem
| > in future (for example it could be the following scenario:
| > some screwed APIC would require cleaning of LVT's or
| > IRR after resume regardless if it was initialized
| > or not at all). Mostly I mean that the idea of making
| > apic->write NOP'ified is quite elegant indeed but
| > cut off the subset of apic operations (we need
| > apic->read anyway) somehow bothering me from inside :)
| 
| it's as if assigned a special type of 'dummy apic' struct apic. It 
| wont cause problems down the line: we use the new APIC driver 
| infrastructure to abstract out quirks.

Well, it's not that new actually :-)

| 
| one small detail:
| 
| > +/* Ack APIC irq if it's enabled only */
| > +static inline void ack_APIC_irq_safe(void)
| > +{
| > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
| > +	if (cpu_has_apic)
| > +		ack_APIC_irq();
| > +#endif
| 
| we dont need the cpu_has_apic check there, do we? In the 
| !cpu_has_apic the ->write method should be a dummy.

Yes. In case you're talking about it'll not be needed
(we will find earlier whether cpu_has_apic or not).

| 
| > -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
| > -		if (!disable_apic)
| > -			ack_APIC_irq();
| > -#endif
| > -
| > +		ack_APIC_irq_safe();
| 
| Please keep the ack_APIC_irq() name - it is inherently safe to call 
| it if we always give it a meaningful ->write method.
| 
| 	Ingo
| 

Ok, I think we eventually try to NOP'ify apic->write method
so this patch is plainly not needed (thanks for comments!).

Will back with new patch.

        Cyrill