[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090209102951.GK20467@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:29:51 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86: unify some of kernel/irq*.c
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> These changes factor out the differences between 32 and 64-bit do_IRQ
> and unify the rest. Unfortunately there are still quite a few other
> differences (like interrupt stack handling) which preclude further easy
> unification.
>
> Thanks,
> J
>
> The following changes since commit f21daa4d04885a34d1972afa9f82a8aebb6152bb:
> Ingo Molnar (1):
> Merge branch 'out-of-tree'
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git jsgf/x86/unify-irq
>
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge (2):
> x86: add handle_irq() to allow interrupt injection
Why doesnt Xen use a special irqchip, instead of this private hook/layer
in the lowlevel x86 arch level?
irqchip is at least well-specified and widely used. do_IRQ() internals
on the other hand will become a Xen special quickly. Also, adding a
needless function call there obviously does not help native performance.
Ingo
--
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