Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754252Ab1EJDYj (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2011 23:24:39 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:5504 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752779Ab1EJDYi convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2011 23:24:38 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,344,1301900400"; d="scan'208";a="433363161" From: "Tian, Kevin" To: Thomas Gleixner , Stefano Stabellini CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , Ian Campbell , "JBeulich@novell.com" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:24:22 +0800 Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them Thread-Index: AcwORc6McB5lwtD3QfS40WLCK7YIiAAe45Og Message-ID: <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8F008B68@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8ED7F7E3@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8ED7F962@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8ED7FB9F@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1395 Lines: 32 > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de] > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:37 PM > > On Mon, 9 May 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > yes, with your patch this issue disappears, since you explicitly > > > make mask/unmask as a nop for xen_percpu_chip, which effectively > > > avoids them from undesired unmask when doing the migration. Though > > > it works, it's not intuitive as to me it's an workaround to make Xen chip > implementation adapting to specific fixup_irqs logic. > > > > I have been tring to follow the example of existing supported drivers. > > The only x86 driver I could find that uses handle_percpu_irq is uv_irq > > that does exatly the same thing. > > Which is a good enough argument to make that change at the common code > level instead of having fancy workarounds here and there. > So Thomas, what's your suggestion to continue here? Is my original patch to skip percpu irq in common code a good option to go, or you want a cleaner code in other form? Once it's clear I'll discuss with Stefano e.g. possibly merge with his cleanup patch series. :-) Thanks Kevin -- 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/