[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702111416220.24829@montezuma.fsmlabs.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:05:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@...radead.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Lu, Yinghai" <yinghai.lu@....com>,
Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: What are the real ioapic rte programming constraints?
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > 2.15.2 PCI Express* Legacy INTx Support and Boot Interrupt
> > http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/30262802.pdf
>
> Ouch. And this kind of thing isn't exactly uncommon.
>
> However if we have the irqs also disabled in the i8259 we should
> be safe from actually receiving this interrupt (even if it generates
> bus traffic), and when we enable the irq since it is level triggered
> we should still get an interrupt message.
>
> It isn't immediately obvious where the i8259 irq enable/disable
> happens. So i"m having trouble auditing that bit of code.
>
> Plus we can get very strange things like the irq number changing
> and the sharing rules being different when going through the i8259.
> So irqN may be irqM when going through the i8259.
>
> As long as we aren't using anything on the i8259 including the timer
> in ExtINT mode we can disable every interrupt pin and not worry about
> interrupts from that source.
We do the 8259 mask in setup_IO_APIC_irq. does anyone have access to an
E7520/E7320 system for testing?
Cheers,
Zwane
-
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