PERFORCE change 112424 for review

[John Baldwin]

On Tuesday 02 January 2007 12:40, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 12:20:09PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 January 2007 11:53, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=112424
> > > 
> > > Change 112424 by cognet at hulglah on 2007/01/02 16:52:32
> > > 
> > > 	Implement a minimalist intr_eoi_src which just calls arm_unmask_irq(),
> > > 	so that irq are unmasked after a filter+ithread runs.
> > 
> > Err, you shouldn't need to mask the IRQ unless you schedule the ithread.   Hmm,
> > I'd also prefer it if we didn't pass function handlers to mi_handle_intr() (which
> > should be intr_handle() or something, all the MI interrupt code is intr_foo(),
> > not mi_foo_intr()) but instead set them in the intr_event and passed them to
> > intr_event_create().
> 
> Basically the problem is arm_execute_handlers() can't know if we're talking
> about an interrupt for which we had a filter, and so we don't have to mask it,
> or an interrupt for which we have to schedule the ithread. So it has to be
> always masked.

Err, no, it shouldn't. :)  mi_handle_intr() will use a different callback for the
different cases.  It should call the disable_and_eoi() hook if the interrupt should
be masked, and it should just call teh eoi() hook if the interrupt just needs to be
eoi'd but not disabled (because a filter claimed it).

-- 
John Baldwin