>And I seriously doubt that PPC SMP irq handling has gotten _nearly_ the
>amount of testing and hard work that the x86 counterpart has. Things
>like support for CPU affinity, per-irq spinlocks, etc etc.
Some of those are the reason I moved part of the x86 irq.c code to PPC
indeed.
>Now, I'm not saying that irq.c would necessarily work as-is. It probably
>doesn't support all the things that other architectures might need (but
>with three completely different irq controllers on just standard PCs
>alone, I bet it supports most of it), and I know ia64 wants to extend it
>to be more spread out over different CPU's, but most of the high-level
>stuff probably _can_ and should be fairly common.
And I think they are. One thing is that if made "common", do_IRQ have to
be split into an arch-specific function that retrives the irq_number (and
does the ack on some controller), and the actual "dispatch" function that
does all the flags game and calls the handler.
I've slightly extended it using the IRQ_PERCPU flag to prevent IRQ_INPROGRESS
from ever beeing set (a bit hackish but I wanted that for IPIs since they
use ordinary irq_desc structures for us in most cases).
Ben.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 07 2001 - 21:00:18 EST