[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:30:07 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30 of 38] xen: implement io_apic_ops
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> it certainly looks thin enough to me although i'm really not sure we
> want to virtualize at the IO-APIC level. Peter, what's your
> opinion/preference?
>
Not having studied the Xen code in detail, but my assumption would be
that we should allocate this at the IRQ chip level rather than violating
the IO-APIC code. I also (as previously discussed) really want to see a
dynamic allocator for IRQ numbers like PowerPC already has.
-hpa
--
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