[Xen-devel] RE: regression from IRQ handling changes?

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>]

While agreeing from a technical perspective, customer perspective on our
products is different: Whenever something like proper UP (no-APIC)
support breaks in our products, we almost immediately get reports of this,
since there will always be someone running Xen e.g. on an old laptop (no
matter whether Xen is meant to be run there).

Less frequent for ACPI, but quite recently we had a report there too (and
I'm under the impression that no-ACPI support has been broken for quite
a while) - luckily, a BIOS update fixed the issue for them, so I didn't have
to look into the issue in more detail.

Otoh, if we really wanted to switch over to APIC and ACPI being a
requirement, I wouldn't mind that step - it just should be that it's clear
whether this is intended to work. And if it isn't, quite a bit of code should
be eliminated/cleaned up.

Jan

>>> "Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> 12.09.09 03:58 >>>
Jan, 
    Frankly speaking, we haven't done the testings which can cover non-APIC 
case.  Does anybody really care about such case now ?  I can't figure out the 
reason why modern system doesn't leverage apic. If non-APIC case is necessary, 
maybe we need to fix it.   As I know, Xen is becoming more and more dependent 
on the components (APIC, ACPI....), so non-APIC or non-ACPI cases maybe 
becoming less and less important.  
Xiantao

Jan Beulich wrote:
> Using c/s 20189, I can't boot my (only) system without APIC anymore. I
> didn't have time to look into the issue in more detail so far, but
> since it seems likely that this is connected to the recent
> per-CPU-IRQ-vector changes, I wanted to ask whether these had been
> tested on APIC-less systems.
> 
> Thanks, Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel