| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: skip migrating IRQF_PER_CPU irq in f
|
To: |
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: skip migrating IRQF_PER_CPU irq in fixup_irqs |
|
From: |
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Tue, 10 May 2011 11:26:54 +0800 |
|
Accept-language: |
en-US |
|
Acceptlanguage: |
en-US |
|
Cc: |
Ian, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "mingo@xxxxxxxxxx" <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, "hpa@xxxxxxxxx" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Mon, 09 May 2011 20:28:38 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<alpine.LFD.2.02.1105091437500.2843@ionos> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8ED7F7E2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110506135828.GC5500@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1105091437500.2843@ionos> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Thread-index: |
AcwORhkDwgrHumEsTNGvPH7/QJgmywAe+drw |
|
Thread-topic: |
[PATCH v2 1/2] x86: skip migrating IRQF_PER_CPU irq in fixup_irqs |
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:39 PM
>
> On Fri, 6 May 2011, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 02:43:36PM +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > because Xen event chip silently fails the set_affinity ops, and
> > > logically IRQF_PER_CPU should be recognized here.
> >
> > OK, so what if the set_affinity ops was implemented?
>
> An interrupt chip which has a set_affinity op should not mark something per
> cpu, which implies that the irq CANNOT be moved.
>
If this is the hard requirement, why not throwing out an error when a chip
is registered?
Thanks
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home