[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5003FCD2.80200@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:36:50 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM fixes for 3.5-rc6
On 07/14/2012 03:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> The only way we can avoid that, is that we get a hint from the
>>> underlying irq chip/ handler setup with an extra flag to tell the
>>> core, that it's safe to avoid the ONESHOT/finalize magic.
>>
>> So now it took a full month of ignorance to come up with the
>> mindboggling solution of working around the core change with a private
>> hack instead of sitting down and doing what was said to be the correct
>> solution.
>
> We sat down and tried to avoid the core problem of our use case: IRQ
> threading. That we now have to fall back to something else is
> unfortunate and was surely not planned.
>
> However, if you push your patch for 3.5, I'm sure Avi will happily drop
> the disliked workaround and replace it with ordinary IRQF_ONESHOT tagging.
Fine by me, of course, but is mucking around in the irq layer something
we want to do in -rc7?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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