Message-ID: <20110208162045.GB4606@dumpdata.com>
Date:	Tue, 8 Feb 2011 11:20:45 -0500
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] XEN: Interrupt cleanups

On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 04:39:58PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 14:55 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > So, with the fixes to 2/4 (irq_move_irq think from yesterday) and 4/4
> > > > (below), the entire series is:
> > > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
> > > 
> > > Cool. So what's the best way to proceed ? That code is not yet in
> > > linus tree, right ?
> > 
> > Correct.
> > 
> > > So I guess the best way is that I add the core changes to a rc-4 based
> > > branch and you can pull it in and apply the whole xen stuff to your
> > > own tree.
> > 
> > My existing cleanup patches are in Konrad's tree (which is in linux-next
> > etc) so that probably makes most sense as a home for this series. So
> > unless Konrad has any objections I think it makes sense to pull your
> > core changes into that branch and then apply your Xen bits on top.

Ok. Pulled in these patches and stuck Ack-ed by Ian on them.
> > 
> > Konrad's branch with my stuff is:
> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/konrad/xen.git stable/irq.rework
> > 
> > Konrad, this thread starts at <20110205200108.921707839@...utronix.de>
> > == http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1096437
> > 
> > > I base my pending patches on top of that so it wont be any problem
> > > when merging the stuff together in next or linus later.
> > 
> > I don't think there will be much trouble with overlap between these and
> > any Xen events.c changes for the next merge window but what you suggest
> > should remove the risk.
> 
> Yes, and please talk to me next time before you hack around in the
> guts of the interrupt code. I noticed just because I was skimming
> -next, and that really conflicts with major cleanups I'm doing. If
> there is a shortcoming in the generic code, then let me know.

<scratches his head> The rework was in Xen code not in generic, and
the only generic changes that are in there ..  are your code?

This is what I've in the stable/irq.rework and also in the linux-next
branch. Please tell me if I messed up.

Ian Campbell (7):
      xen: handled remapped IRQs when enabling a pcifront PCI device.
      xen:events: move find_unbound_irq inside CONFIG_PCI_MSI
      xen: events: add xen_allocate_irq_{dynamic, gsi} and xen_free_irq
      xen: events: allocate GSIs and dynamic IRQs from separate IRQ ranges.
      xen: events: do not free legacy IRQs
      xen: Fix compile error introduced by "switch to new irq_chip functions"
      xen/timer: Missing IRQF_NO_SUSPEND in timer code broke suspend.

Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk (2):
      xen/irq: Cleanup the find_unbound_irq
      xen/irq: Don't fall over when nr_irqs_gsi > nr_irqs.

Thomas Gleixner (3):
      xen: Remove stale irq_chip.end
      xen: Switch to new irq_chip functions
      genirq: Add IRQF_FORCE_RESUME

> 
> Core change is in 
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git irq/for-xen

<nods> Pulled that in my branch.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> --
> 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/
--
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