Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:40:11 +0100 From: Olivier Houchard <cognet@ci0.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 112424 for review Message-ID: <20070102174011.GA93081@ci0.org> In-Reply-To: <200701021220.09987.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200701021653.l02GrTiC007919@repoman.freebsd.org> <200701021220.09987.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 12:20:09PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 02 January 2007 11:53, Olivier Houchard wrote: > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=112424 > > > > Change 112424 by cognet@hulglah on 2007/01/02 16:52:32 > > > > Implement a minimalist intr_eoi_src which just calls arm_unmask_irq(), > > so that irq are unmasked after a filter+ithread runs. > > Err, you shouldn't need to mask the IRQ unless you schedule the ithread. Hmm, > I'd also prefer it if we didn't pass function handlers to mi_handle_intr() (which > should be intr_handle() or something, all the MI interrupt code is intr_foo(), > not mi_foo_intr()) but instead set them in the intr_event and passed them to > intr_event_create(). Basically the problem is arm_execute_handlers() can't know if we're talking about an interrupt for which we had a filter, and so we don't have to mask it, or an interrupt for which we have to schedule the ithread. So it has to be always masked. Cheers, Olivier
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070102174011.GA93081>