On 10/15/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >>
> >> I think the scenario you outline is an illustration of the approach's
> >> fragility: disable_irq() is a heavy hammer that originated with INTx,
> >> and it relies on a chip-specific disable method (kernel/irq/manage.c)
> >> that practically guarantees behavior will vary across MSI/INTx/etc.
> >>
> > I checked the code: IRQ_DISABLE is implemented in software, i.e.
> > handle_level_irq() only calls handle_IRQ_event() [and then the nic irq
> > handler] if IRQ_DISABLE is not set.
> > OTHO: The last trace looks as if nv_do_nic_poll() is interrupted by an irq.
> >
> > Perhaps something corrupts dev->irq? The irq is requested with
> > request_irq(np->pci_dev->irq, handler, IRQF_SHARED, dev->name, dev)
> > and disabled with
> > disable_irq_lockdep(dev->irq);
> >
> > Someone around with a MSI capable board? The forcedeth driver does
> > dev->irq = pci_dev->irq
> > in nv_probe(), especially before pci_enable_msi().
> > Does pci_enable_msi() change pci_dev->irq? Then we would disable the
> > wrong interrupt....
>
> Remember, fundamentally MSI-X is a one-to-many relationship, when you
> consider a single PCI device might have multiple vectors.
msi-x is using other entry
if (np->msi_flags & NV_MSI_X_ENABLED)
enable_irq_lockdep(np->msi_x_entry[NV_MSI_X_VECTOR_ALL].vector);
YH
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
