[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1202011108240.3196@kaball-desktop>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:09:41 +0000
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@...nok.org>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen pvhvm: do not remap pirqs onto evtchns
if !xen_have_vector_callback
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 04:40:26PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:31:46PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
> > >
> > > So the xen_have_vector_callback looks to be only set by
> > >
> > > 1398 if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_callback_vector))
> > > 1399 xen_have_vector_callback = 1;
> > >
> > > So could this be just done via a check for that instead?
> > >
> >
> > Sure, but I don't think it would be better: using
> > xen_have_vector_callback is more consistent and give us the flexibility
> > of allowing users to manually override it in the future.
>
> ok. applied. Hm, I was thinking to put on stable@...nel.org - but how
> far back should it go? 2.6.37?
Yes, I think is 2.6.37 when we introduced using XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs.
--
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