linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4A3A9220.4070807@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:14:40 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	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: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's
 no local APIC

On 06/18/09 09:08, Len Brown wrote:
>> In principle, the local APIC and the I/O APIC are distinct (but related)
>> components, which can be independently present.
>>     
>
> bzzzzt, but thanks for playing:-)
>   

Perhaps I should have expressed that a bit more clearly:  you could, if
mad, build a machine with I/O APICs and some other mechanism for
delivering the interrupts to CPUs.  In practice, I doubt anyone ever
has, or ever would.

The only actual exception I know of is Xen's replacement of the physical
local APIC with a paravirtualized interrupt interface.

    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/