[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52BE244B.5040206@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 17:07:23 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>,
Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Janet Morgan <janet.morgan@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Ruiv Wang <ruiv.wang@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, irq, fix logical AND/OR error in check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable()
On 12/27/2013 08:13 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>
>> Back to my question, assume cpu1 will be off-lined and one irq affinity is
>> set as (1, 2) -- this irq will be bypassed. Looks good. But if one irq
>> affinity is set as only (1), -- this irq is bypassed, too. Not right!
>
> Oh, yes, this is a bug. ... and as you point out ...
>
Does this mean the patch that is currently in my tree should not be
pushed to Linus? It sounds like that to me...
-hpa
--
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