[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1zlc5jqac.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:27:39 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.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
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> writes:
> 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.
No one ever has. Xen doesn't have I/O APICs either. Not in any real
sense. Xen just has devices that looking like I/O apics if you don't
look close.
Eric
--
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