[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877crzr0pq.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 16:22:25 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
"Kang, Shan" <shan.kang@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v8 01/33] x86/traps: let common_interrupt() handle
IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR
On Mon, Jun 19 2023 at 08:00, Li, Xin3 wrote:
> To me it's better to keep the changes in one patch, thus the differences
> are more obvious.
The rename to vector_schedule_cleanup() can be obviously done first.
> We need a second patch to do vector cleanup in lapic_offline() in case the
> vector cleanup timer has not expired.
Right. I was lazy and just put a WARN_ON() there under the assumption
that you will figure it out.
But a second patch?
We don't switch things over into a broken state first and then fix it up
afterwards.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists