[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8ED7FAA0@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 08:44:30 +0800
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"JBeulich@...ell.com" <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating
them
> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [mailto:jeremy@...p.org]
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 9:45 AM
>
> On 05/07/2011 12:04 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I'm not really sure why these can't just be an evtchn without an
> > associated IRQ since it doesn't really have any interrupt-like
> > semantics. Perhaps just a general desire to keep event channels
> > abstracted into the core Xen event subsystem with IRQs as the public
> > facing API? Jeremy?
>
> It doesn't really need to be an irq. The main reason was so that it would
> appear in /proc/interrupts so I could use the counter as a "number of times a
> spinlock was kicked" counter. That could be exposed in some other way if
> being part of the interrupt infrastructure brings too much baggage with it.
>
Perhaps we don't need an irq binding here. Just like a local APIC interrupt
source which only needs vector. Somehow the virq or vipi concept in Xen
context is similar.
Thanks
Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists