On Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:56 am Michal Schmidt wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:33:10 +0100 > > David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > I think David's original patch (just declining to mask the > > > interrupt) is the best approach to take. Perhaps architectures > > > with saner interrupt hardware would like to try the approach I've > > > mentioned here. > > > > > > I don't like the comment in http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/27/199 as > > > it's not prohibited ... just a bad idea. How about this patch? > > > > The PCI specification is quite clear that it's prohibited. The > > problem also is more severe than simply having spurious interrupts -- > > with some devices if a line interrupt is generated (regardless of > > whether it ends up on the bus) then no more interrupts are generated. > > > > I also think that the change requires a comment in the code. It odd > > to have a mask function that doesn't really mask so a comment is > > necessary to explain why this is. > > > > Please apply this instead. > > > > David > > This breaks the setting of SMP affinity for MSI interrupts :-( > With the patch, writes to /proc/irq/<n>/smp_affinity are ignored for an > MSI interrupt. It should only break it for devices that don't provide a mask bit. But given that we can't really mask generically on those devices, maybe that's ok given that it fixes the other problems mentioned in this thread... Jesse -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
