[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2FABAEF0D3DCAF4F9C9628D6E2F9684521253F@BGSMSX102.gar.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 04:22:15 +0000
From: "Iyer, Sundar" <sundar.iyer@...el.com>
To: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arjan@...ux.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
"Monroy, German" <german.monroy@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/1] x86/irq: handle chained interrupts during IRQ
migration
Hi Thomas/Paul,
Any comments on the latest patch set?
Thanks
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mundt [mailto:lethal@...ux-sh.org]
>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:02 AM
>To: Iyer, Sundar
>Cc: tglx@...utronix.de; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; arjan@...ux.intel.com; Monroy,
>German
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] x86/irq: handle chained interrupts during IRQ migration
>
>On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:25:07AM +0530, Sundar Iyer wrote:
>> Chained interrupt handlers dont have an irqaction and hence are not
>> handled during migrating interrupts when some cores go offline.
>>
>> Handle this by introducing a irq_is_chained() check which is based on
>> the the CHAINED flag being set for such interrupts. fixup_irq() can
>> then handle such interrupts and not skip them over.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sundar Iyer <sundar.iyer@...el.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Yang, Fei <fei.yang@...el.com>
>> Tested-by: Ng, Cheon-woei <cheon-woei.ng@...el.com>
>
>Looks better to me.
--
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