[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071023.220622.68038077.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: barkalow@...ervon.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
linas@...tin.ibm.com, chunhao.huang@...mail.com, gregkh@...e.de,
htejun@...il.com, brice.goglin@...il.com,
david.gaarenstroom@...il.com, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
shane.huang@....com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, brice@...i.com,
mchan@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4]: Resolve MSI vs. INTX_DISABLE quirks.
From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@...ervon.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:58:45 -0400 (EDT)
> I'm not sure all of the pci_intx() calls in msi.c should be skipped when
> the quirk applies; I think some of them might be there so that the legacy
> interrupt won't be delivered while MSI is turned off (since the handler
> isn't listening for the legacy interrupts). I'd guess this would cause
> people to have their MSI-capable device kill their non-MSI-capable device
> when they restore their laptop (and the shared interrupt fires and gets
> stuck at just the wrong time). No idea if this is a real concern, but I'm
> pretty sure that not all of those calls are recent.
I don't think it's a real concern.
> There's a couple of ATA drivers that look like they might be trying to
> work around the same bug, but it's a bit hard to tell. It might be good to
> have them use the quirk (or set the flag) because it's cleaner.
I noticed these cases as well, and I would hope that Jeff would help
out here using the infrastructure my patches created.
-
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