Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752084AbZDTA1f (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:27:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751229AbZDTA11 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:27:27 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:39125 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751211AbZDTA10 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:27:26 -0400 Message-ID: <49EBC150.2020407@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:26:56 +0900 From: Hidetoshi Seto User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/28] x86: Fix panic with interrupts off (needed for MCE) References: <20090407507.636692542@firstfloor.org> <20090407150740.D95E51D046D@basil.firstfloor.org> In-Reply-To: <20090407150740.D95E51D046D@basil.firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1416 Lines: 50 Andi Kleen wrote: > I put the reboot vector into the highest priority bucket > of the APIC vectors and moved the 64bit UV_BAU message > down instead into the next lower priority. I had forgotten to point this... > @@ -88,12 +88,14 @@ > #define THERMAL_APIC_VECTOR 0xfa > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 > -/* 0xf8 - 0xf9 : free */ > +/* 0xf9 : free */ > #else > # define THRESHOLD_APIC_VECTOR 0xf9 > -# define UV_BAU_MESSAGE 0xf8 > #endif > > +#define REBOOT_VECTOR 0xf8 > + > + > /* f0-f7 used for spreading out TLB flushes: */ > #define INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR_END 0xf7 > #define INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR_START 0xf0 > @@ -116,6 +118,8 @@ > */ > #define GENERIC_INTERRUPT_VECTOR 0xed > > +#define UV_BAU_MESSAGE 0xec > + > /* > * First APIC vector available to drivers: (vectors 0x30-0xee) we > * start at 0x31(0x41) to spread out vectors evenly between priority Does this change (=pulling down the priority of UV_BAU_VECTOR) not impact users of the UV_BAU_MESSAGE? I can see why REBOOT_VECTOR need to be highest priority. Maybe you could pull down THERMAL_APIC_VECTOR/THRESHOLD_APIC_VECTOR instead. Why you choose UV_BAU_MESSAGE? Thanks, H.Seto -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/