[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4DC81635020000780004072A@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 15:28:37 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc: "Ian Campbell" <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>,
"Kevin Tian" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: skip migrating IRQF_PER_CPU irq in
fixup_irqs
>>> On 09.05.11 at 14:39, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2011, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 02:43:36PM +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> > because Xen event chip silently fails the set_affinity ops, and
>> > logically IRQF_PER_CPU should be recognized here.
>>
>> OK, so what if the set_affinity ops was implemented?
>
> An interrupt chip which has a set_affinity op should not mark
> something per cpu, which implies that the irq CANNOT be moved.
Why shouldn't it be possible o use the same "chip" for both per-CPU
and "normal" IRQs?
Jan
--
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