Alan Cox wrote: > On Gwe, 2006-05-12 at 00:45 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> a spurious interrupt or HSM violation. But, it sounds like it could >> result in screaming IRQ for controllers without IRQ pending bit. Could >> it? If so, maybe unconditional irq clearing in ata_interrupt() should >> be resurrected to handle such conditions. > > Not sure how the sil24 handles it but the PATA chips seem (its not well I'm pretty sure most modern controllers including sil24 drops IRQ once masked. Also, as they have IRQ pending bit, such IRQs can easily be cleared. > documented) to drop any pending interrupt once it is masked, thus you > would take the interrupt once (or maybe 2 or 3 times in weird obscure > corner cases on a pentium II SMP box) and then no more. So, they will drop interrupt after several unhandled IRQs at most even if the driver doesn't read TF status register to clear it, right? -- tejun - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
