[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8F008B6E@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:26:54 +0800
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>,
"JBeulich@...ell.com" <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: skip migrating IRQF_PER_CPU irq in
fixup_irqs
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@...utronix.de]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:39 PM
>
> 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.
>
If this is the hard requirement, why not throwing out an error when a chip
is registered?
Thanks
Kevin
--
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