Re: [PATCH 0/7] Boot IRQ quirks and rerouting

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > There is no way to take care of an unwanted interrupt when there is no
> > handler which knows to deal with the device.
> 
>  Of course.
> 
> > The problem case is mostly preempt-rt, where we receive the interrupt,
> > mask it and wake up the handler thread. We can not leave it unmasked
> > for obvious reasons.
> 
>  Hmm, I can see what the problem is now -- you can mask the input of the
> primary I/O APIC in this case (with no side effects), making other sources
> at that line suffer, but at least you get away.
> 
>  Anyway, my other questions remain open.  How is the INTx message actually
> delivered to the ICH? 

I have roughly as much clue as you about that. The datashi^Heet is not
really helpful.

> And why is the command line option needed?

We don't want to impose that in the first place, but OTOH to get test
coverage it's probably better to do it unconditionally.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/