Re: [PATCH 2.6.21-rc5] MSI: read-flush MSI-X table

[Eric W. Biederman]

"Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Doh!  I was reading the code wrong.  We only mask if we're still
> handling a previous interrupt on the same vector.  My bad.
>
> However, I can't really see where mask() is used outside of that
> instance.  Which then leads us back to the question:  do we need
> a read flush on mask/unmask or just enable/disable?

I'm not even certain we need the read flush in the enable.
However having it in there makes the code easier to reason
about.  Which is a big plus.

Generally if the interrupt controller hardware is sane 
mask/unmask and enable/disable should be the same function.

If we need to work around something in the hardware enable/disable
should do that and mask/unmask should poke the hardware.

Since MSI is specified as properly handle pending interrupts
I would put the write flush in mask.  It makes the code easier
to understand and comprehend.

The practical question in my book is do we set the enable/disable
methods to the same functions as the mask/unmask methods or
do we let them default to the crazy delayed disable scenario.

Given that we do have a tiny race where we need to ensure the
MSI is disabled before we unregister it, we don't know of any
MSI implementation problems that will result in a screaming IRQ.
I would say set enable/disable to the mask/unmask methods.

This will fix the tiny freeing bug mentioned above, and not play
games with drivers that are using MSI irqs.

If at some point we need a lesser form someone can change the msi
enable/disable methods to something else.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/