lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:36:10 +1100 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> To: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dwalker@...sta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: PowerPC: fix breakage in threaded fasteoi type IRQ handlers On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 23:31 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > The fasteoi flow seem to only had been used for x86 IOAPIC in the RT patch > only *before* PPC took to using them in the mainline... I don't think so, I asked for the fasteoi to be created while porting ppc to genirq :-) > > threaded handlers need a mask() + an ack(), because that's the correct > > Not all of them. This could be customized on type-by-type basis. I.e. we > could call eoi() instead of ack() for fasteoi chips without having to resort > to the duplicated ack/eoi handlers. I still don't see how ack() makes sense in the context of a fasteoi... You can either just not EOI until it's handled, but you'll indeed introduce delays for other interrupts of the same priority or lower, or you can mask() and then eoi(), which is, I think, what Apple does, to deliver the interrupt to a thread (and later unmask). In any case, I don't see the need for a separate ack(). Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists