[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48C719C0.6060201@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:50:08 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: TARGET_CPUS in assign_irq_vector
Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>
>> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>>> target_cpus is the cpus that could be possible to used to take vector
>>> and process that irq. so at least it should be online.
>>>
>>>
>> Would it be wrong to make it possible_cpu_mask?
>>
>>
> it is wrong
What happens if you online a new cpu and migrate the irq to it? Does it
get allocated a new vector?
I'm using create_irq() as a general irq and vector allocation mechanism
for Xen interrupts. I'd like to be able to allocate a vector across all
possible cpus so I can bind Xen event channels to vectors. Should I: 1)
add a create_irq_cpus() which takes a cpu mask rather than defaulting to
TARGET_CPUS, 2) modify struct genapic to insert by own target_cpus(),
3) give up because the idea is fundamentally ill-conceived, or 4)
something else?
Thanks,
J
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists