linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: skip migrating IRQF_PER_CPU irq in fixup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 09 May 2011 15:28:37 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:	"Ian Campbell" <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>,
	"Kevin Tian" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: skip migrating IRQF_PER_CPU irq in
	 fixup_irqs

>>> On 09.05.11 at 14:39, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 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.

Why shouldn't it be possible o use the same "chip" for both per-CPU
and "normal" IRQs?

Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/