Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270321AbUJUH0z (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:26:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270333AbUJUH0P (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:26:15 -0400 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([81.187.226.98]:51465 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270241AbUJUHXj (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:23:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:23:38 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Chris Wedgwood Cc: LKML , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [RFC] add struct hw_interrupt_type->release Message-ID: <20041021072338.GA925@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Chris Wedgwood , LKML , Ingo Molnar References: <20041020023156.GA8597@taniwha.stupidest.org> <20041020130715.GA20287@infradead.org> <20041020023156.GA8597@taniwha.stupidest.org> <20041021022630.GA320@taniwha.stupidest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041021022630.GA320@taniwha.stupidest.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by phoenix.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1524 Lines: 38 On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 07:26:30PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:31:56PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > > +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c 2004-10-19 17:47:40 -07:00 > > @@ -260,6 +260,7 @@ > > else > > desc->handler->disable(irq); > > } > ^^^ > > + platform_free_irq_notify(irq, dev_id); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock,flags); > > unregister_handler_proc(irq, action); > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:07:15PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > This looks rather bogus to me. What prevents UML from doing it's > > work at the struct hw_interrupt_type level? > > the ^^^ marked part reads something like if (!desc->action) { ... } > presumably meaning the shutdown/disable is only done when the very > last user of an interrupt source is removed > > UML needs to be notified when *any* user is removed so either need > some way to tell the generic code this or perhaps we could introduce > another op to hw_interrupt_type along the lines of ->release like > this: Care to explain why it needs that? How exactly is UML using hardirqs, they seems to fit very badly into the concept of a usermode kernel if you ask me. Maybe UML would be better off to not use hardirqs at all, ala s390. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/